Ms A Khambay v George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust: 1308702/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1308702/2023
Between
Ms A KhambayClaimantGeorge Eliot Hospital NHS TrustRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Perry, Mrs W Ellis & Mr J KellyMr J Heard (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 20 February 2026
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant was not discriminated against contrary to part 5 of the Equality Act 2010. Her complaints of direct discrimination on grounds of race and/or religious belief and/or sex, harassment related to sex, sexual harassment and equal pay are either dismissed (or as appropriate) dismissed upon withdrawal.[2]Further the respondent’s material factor defence succeeds.
REASONS
[1]At the start of the hearing, we had before us:- 1.1. a bundle that following addition now runs to 1276 pages (including certain documents that were added in relation to a claim brought by Mr Aslam against GEH), 1.2. a supplementary bundle that now runs to 1277 pages (including extracts of certain WhatsApp messages), 1.3. a chronology from both parties, 1.4. cast lists from both parties, 1.5. a reading list from Ms Khambay, and 1 / 112 1.6. opening submissions from GEH including submissions on various applications that were before us.[2]Various documents were added as the hearing progressed including amongst various others an email from Mr Parr to Mr Aslam dated 30 December 2022 headed “She's all yours !”[3]We were also supplied amongst other matters as the case progressed from Mr Heard 3.1. a summary of the Law and 3.2. closing submissions[4]We also received submissions from Ms Khambay on the morning of 1 December together with a revised version just under an hour later.[5]Following the conclusion of the evidence and submissions at around 2:00 pm on 1 December we invited the parties to lodge a suggested way forward given the issues for determination at this hearing were limited (see (496 and our comments starting at 576)).[6]Witness statements were provided for the following witness on behalf of GEH:- 6.1. Mr Haq Khan, GEH’s Chief Finance Officer 6.2. Mr Michael Parr, Deputy Chief Finance Officer, who reported to Mr Khan 6.3. Mrs Maxine Buckler, a Data Improvement Manager who at points reported to Ms Khambay 6.4. Mr Brett Beetham, a Senior Data Scientist 6.5. Mrs Lynne Betteridge, a Senior Data Quality Officer 6.6. Ms Katie Hughes, a Senior Data Quality Officer 6.7. Mr Shivaraj Huller, a Senior Clinical Digital Charge Nurse 6.8. Mr Sid Singh, a Consultant Urologist and Chief Clinical Informatics Officer 6.9. Ms Mena Kumari, a Digital Clinical Risk Manager, and 6.10. Mr Manoj Srivastava, a Deputy Chief Clinical Informatics Officer and the following witness on behalf of Ms Khambay 6.11. Ms Aneet Khambay, an Information Systems Development Programme Specialist (Apr 2021 – 15 July 2021), GEH’s Acting Head of Information and Performance (from 15 July 2021) and its Head of Data Science – Systems (from January 2023) 6.12. Mr Khalil Aslam, GEH’s Head of Information and Performance (April 2021 – June 2022) and Associate Director Information and Performance (from June 2022) 6.13. Miss Maarya Abbas initially undertook work experienced at GEH from 27 September 2021 for even months and who was thereafter 2 / 112 employed from May to 31 October 2022 and more recently since 3 July 2023 by GEH as an information analyst. 6.14. Mr Mohammed Ahmed a Senior Programme Manager at GEH from January 2023 to October 2024.[7]Mr Aslam was involved in a separate claim against GEH. We were informed during the trial that has already been heard and a decision promulgated. We asked the parties during the trial if they wished to invite us to read it. They did not. That being so we decided not to read that judgment and to determine the case on the basis of the evidence we heard and documents led before us. APPLICATIONS ON THE FIRST DAY[8]On the first morning we had a number of applications to consider: 8.1. an application by GEH to postpone given the absence of Mr Parr one of GEH’s principal witnesses, 8.2. an application by GEH to include additional documents in the bundle concerning a claim brought by Mr Aslam, 8.3. an application to amend her claim by Ms Khambay, 8.4. an application by Ms Khambay to include additional documents in the bundle, and 8.5. applications concerning adjustments.[9]As we state above Mr Heard provided a skeleton setting out GEH’s position. We heard from both parties.[10]With regards to the applications to add documents many related to existing documents common to the parties, such as GEH’s policies, and so added on the basis the Tribunal would most likely wish to see them, both parties should have been aware of them and little prejudice caused by their introduction. The documents relating to Mr Aslam’s claim were admitted by the panel on the basis they would be put to Mr Aslam when he gave evidence with regards to consistency and as the maker, he was aware of them. As to others, including the report eventually provided concerning Ms Khambay’s grievance we permitted the parties time to discuss the same and they too were added by agreement. As to the grievance report we should record that Ms Khambay on 12 September 2025 and so again she was not being taken by surprise and the interviews that gave rise to it were already in the bundle.[11]Ms Khambay’s application to amend introducing new complaints was refused on the basis that it was too late, in any event insufficiently detailed and the issues of particularisation aside, the absence of Mr Parr demonstrated the prejudice any amendment would put the respondent to. Further in our judgement the need to permit the GEH to take instructions from the witnesses and the additional time required to challenge would have also put completing the hearing within the trial window in jeopardy. 3 / 112[12]On the issue of the detail of the complaints, we identified at the outset the lack of detail in Ms Khambay’s witness statement despite the instruction unambiguously and clearly set out in the case management order made by Judge Maxwell that was sent to the parties on 17 December 2024 [92-93]:- ““Witness statements”[22]The Claimant and the Respondent must prepare witness statements for use at the hearing. Everybody who is going to be a witness at the hearing, including the Claimant, needs a witness statement.[23]A witness statement is a document containing everything relevant the witness can tell the Tribunal. Witnesses will not be allowed to add to their statements unless the Tribunal agrees.[24]Witness statements should be typed if possible. They must have paragraph numbers and page numbers. They must set out events, usually in the order they happened. They must also include any evidence about financial losses and any other remedy the Claimant is asking for. If the witness statement refers to a document in the file it should give the page number.[25]At the hearing, the Tribunal will read the witness statements. Witnesses may be asked questions about their statements by the other side and the Tribunal.” Despite that lack of detail and what was agreed in relation to her not being permitted to provide new detail in relation to allegations concerning Mr Parr following the refusal of GEH’s application to postpone the trial (see (20 to 27)) Ms Khambay repeatedly sought to elaborate on her earlier account.13. As to adjustments Ms Khambay sought: 13.1. Permission to use her laptop and contemporaneous notes while giving evidence, due to [REDACTED] arising from my medical conditions. 13.2. Short breaks of approximately 15 minutes every 45 minutes of questioning to enable rest, medication, and symptom management. This can be flexible depending on how I am feeling. 13.3. A trauma-informed approach to questioning, avoiding unnecessary repetition or aggressive cross-examination. 13.4. The option for shorter cross-examination sessions divided across days if required by my medical condition. 13.5. Permission for a non-legal support person to accompany me during recesses or breaks to assist with emotional regulation. 13.6. If remote participation becomes necessary, assurance that stable technology and visual cues will be used to reduce anxiety triggers. 4 / 11214. Ms Khambay provided a note dated 3 November not from her consultant or GP but Mohammed H Rahman, a Social Prescribing Link Worker supporting adjustments 1 to 5. He told us that Ms Khambay had a clinically significant history of work-related [REDACTED] that, in his professional opinion, was causally linked to prolonged and ongoing adverse employment experiences via her current employer. He stated that her presentation includes: 14.1. [REDACTED] features arising from workplace incidents; 14.2. [REDACTED]; 14.3. [REDACTED], and 14.4. [REDACTED].15. As to effect he indicated those symptoms were persistent and substantially impaired Ms Khambay's capacity for prolonged cognitive work. She experienced [REDACTED]. That those symptoms materially limit her ability to follow complex questioning, recall timelines and sustain performance during extended tribunal sessions without reasonable adjustment. He indicated Ms Khambay's symptoms have persisted for more than two years and without those adjustments she would be unable to give full and reliable evidence during a lengthy hearing.16. He also indicated she may need short pauses to take prescribed medication. His thus did not address the last of her requests.17. We enquired as to the ability of a Social Prescribing Link Worker to diagnose such matters as Mr Rahman did not identify these in his letter. We suggested to Ms Khambay that whilst we would regularly take breaks, allow her and Mr Aslam to make notes by a laptop or in writing (but not via a laptop whilst she was giving evidence to ensure what she was accessing could be regulated), ensure she was clear on any questions posed and prevent aggressive crossexamination as we would with any witness and acknowledge she had memory issues absent a report from a qualified medical practitioner identifying the basis for the other adjustments sought we were unable to grant them. We indicated we would review that on provision of that information. Despite repeated reminders during the course of the three weeks of evidence Ms Khambay did not provide that additional medical evidence. Nor did she provide any medical evidence to support her contentions that her memory issues were caused by the discrimination she claimed she had suffered at the hands of GEH (see also (68 & 328)).18. We do not propose to address the reasons for the adjustments sought for Mr Aslam here as the adjustments sought, essentially additional breaks as and when required, were granted and not contentious.19. Throughout the trial the Tribunal sought to ensure regular breaks were taken and any requests for additional breaks were acceded to.20. As to GEH’s application to postpone the hearing whilst Mr Heard identified 4 ways forward the application was opposed by Ms Khambay. 5 / 11221. We accept there is clear prejudice to GEH (and also Mr Parr personally given the allegations of discrimination made against him) if we proceed in his absence. The medical evidence provided in support of the application did not address all the relevant points. These related to whether adjustments could facilitate the hearing proceeding, if so, when and what was the likelihood Mr Parr would be able to give evidence at all.22. It was apparent that Mr Parr currently was not in any position to give evidence. The medical report did not address if that was always likely to be the case although it became apparent from the enquiries that he would not be in a position to do so for at least 12 months. We sought to canvass also whether it was the claim that was causing or contributing to the issue Mr Parr having given evidence at Mr Aslam’s trial. If that was the case it generally the case that Mr Parr would ever to be in a position to give evidence as the cause and problem became a circular problem (he would not be able to give evidence whilst the trial was still to be heard, and the trial could not be heard without him). Whilst the evidence alludes to this impacting the question was not addressed directly.23. Having canvassed the availability of a trial window if the hearing was vacated that it could not be relisted for 2 years. By then 6 years will have passed since the earliest events, several of GEH’s senior leaders have already left and whilst the case has been prepared and witness evidence collected the negative effect on cogency, which is already a factor, will no doubt increase.24. Whilst there are some issues only Mr Parr can address Mr Heard accepted, they are limited and for the most part his evidence can be addressed by others. GEH has not really addressed why other factors such as the interviews he gave as part of the investigation of Ms Khambay’s grievance which did not appear to be included in bundle could be used. 25. Of the various options open to us including the four identified by Mr Heard we concluded that proceeding albeit with conditions imposed was the least prejudicial. Whilst this was an extremely difficult question given the prejudice to both sides, we concluded that any prejudice to GEH could be reduced (albeit not removed entirely) by Ms Khambay not being permitted to expand orally on matters where Mr Parr solely could evidence (having canvassed this with Ms Khambay during submissions on the issue she agreed to this) given he had already provided a witness statement. We concluded that the prejudice to GEH caused by that was outweighed by the prejudice of vacating the hearing given the risk Mr Parr would never be able to give evidence, the length of time that has already passed and how long it would take for a trial to be relisted at which he could appear if able.[26]Despite that agreement Ms Khambay repeatedly elaborated on matters including those where only Mr Parr could address them. We indicated also we would not refer to the nature and extent of Mr Parr’s illness in open tribunal. The Tribunal rigidly enforced that during the trial. It became apparent at the conclusion of the hearing Mr Heard was under the impression the tribunal had made a general anonymisation order concerning Mr Parr. we clarified that was 6 / 112 not what the Tribunal had intended and nor could that be given his name was repeatedly mentioned in open tribunal.[27]We indicated also we would not refer to the nature and extent of Mr Parr’s illness in open tribunal. The Tribunal rigidly enforced that during the trial. It became apparent at the conclusion of the hearing Mr Heard was under the impression the tribunal had made a general anonymisation order concerning Mr Parr. we clarified that was not what the Tribunal had intended and nor could that be given his name was repeatedly mentioned in open tribunal. Despite that agreement Ms Khambay repeatedly elaborated on matters including those where only Mr Parr could address them. “ANONYMISATION” APPLICATIONS[28]Following the conclusion of the hearing the parties made a number of “anonymisation” applications. The panel had already agreed to reconvene to finalise the reasons on 11 February. Having sought and obtained clarity that there were no objections to the panel considering those applications on the papers the Tribunal decided to do so.[29]Given these applications are for case management decisions as opposed to judgments (as defined in rule 2(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024) our determination is set out in a separate case management order. We assume that will not be contentious as that will prevent the arguments raised themselves being published on the internet. That will follow this order in the next week or so depending on the Judge’s availability. In the interim the judge has issued a direction this Judgment with Reasons shall not be posted on the internet at this time. OTHER[30]At 17:14 on 8 December 2025 the claimant provided a list of cases and legal principles she wished to rely on. As submissions had been concluded the respondent objected. The claimant was told that if she wished to make written submissions when they should be lodged by during the hearing she did not. The evidence and submissions in Tribunal claims should be made during the hearing. The point of a hearing would be circumvented if the parties could litigate by correspondence thereafter and cases would be substantially protracted. The Tribunal will thus not consider that document. CHRONOLOGY - OVERVIEW[31]GEH is part of a foundation that also includes South Warwickshire University NHS Foundation Trust (SWFT). GEH has an average 2,601 employees (whole time equivalent basis) and 358 general and acute beds. The Trust hub is located on the outskirts of Nuneaton and their services cover an area comprising North Warwickshire, South West Leicestershire, and North Coventry [830].We had a number of its policies before us. They included:- Name date review date pages 7 / 112 FTSU* Policy 26/08/2022 May 2025 750-766 Grievance Policy 2023 25/06/202325/06/2028 766-781 Grievance Policy 2020 November 2020 June 2025 782-801 Dignity at Work Policy July 2023 July 2028 801-817 * Freedom To Speak Up (see (44))[32]Mr Aslam commenced employment with GEH on 1 April 2021 as Head of Information and Performance [130]. Mr Aslam was employed at band 8c level.[33]Shortly after on 12 April 2021 Ms Khambay commenced employment with GEH. She was initially employed as an Information Systems Development Programme Specialist, a band 8a project management role and reported to Mr Aslam. Her contract, application form and CV were not before us. Her job description [1116 -1122] and the person specification for her role [1123-1124] were.[34]It was clarified as part of the case management process that she describes herself as British Indian and a Muslim.[35]Between 15 July and 19 November 2021 Mr Aslam went on long-term sick leave [857]. Ms Khambay temporarily “acted up” in Mr Aslam’s Role. There is a dispute as to what that entailed and how long that lasted. The respondent argues Ms Khambay undertook the more operational side of the role and Mr Parr, Mr Aslam’s line manager shared out the more strategic elements of Mr Aslam’s role with Mr Khan (his own line manager), Mr Khan also taking aspects of Mr Parr’s role.[36]This is a convenient point to record that Mr Khan is a Muslim and attends the same mosque as Mr Aslam. Mr Khan told us they have known each other for 20 years plus as a result and also worked at Worcester Acute Hospital at the same time. Mr Khan told us that for 4 years (that is from around the time Mr Aslam started working at GEH) they owned together what appeared to be a rental property. They are in the process of disposing the same.[37]Whilst she was acting up, her job title was temporarily changed to “Acting Head of Information and Performance” and her pay band increased to that of Mr Aslam Band 8c.[38]Ms Khambay makes a number of complaints about her treatment by GEH and its staff from July 2021 on that we address below.[39]GEH asserts due to his experience he had been employed at the top of band 8c (at that time £75,874), whereas Ms Khambay was at the bottom of band 8c (£65,664)[40]The evidence before us is not clear on the point but Ms Khambay told us Mr Aslam returned to the Trust in February 2022 on a phased return. He appeared to agree. Neither they nor GEH were able to identify when that was although some of the evidence before us suggests it was November/December 2021. That demonstrates a repeated theme on the part of GEH, poor record keeping and a similar lack of detail on the part of Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam. 8 / 112[41]Despite his return Ms Khambay remained “acting up” until January 2023 (when she was appointed to a new role (see (47)). She told us this was in order to support Mr Aslam’s return and because of concerns that he may need further surgery.[42]On or about 7 January 2022 Ms Khambay told us that she and her children undertook the Shahadah declaration of faith to Allah and Muhammed as his messenger. She was unable to say precisely when she changed her name from Hodson to Khambay and also to Aslam. By 25 August 2022 her email address was “Aneet.Hodson@...” and she was described as “Hodson, Aneet (RLT) Acting Head of Information and Performance” yet signed off her email “Aneet Hodson-Khambay” [186].[43]In June 2022 there was a restructuring and Mr Aslam’s role was re-graded; he received a backdated pay rise and his title changed to Associate Director of Information and Performance [176]. We address this and Ms Khambay’s change of role (as set out in the following paragraphs) starting at (496) as part of the first of the two pay complaints she brings.[44]During the course of the summer/autumn of 2022 it appears that issues were raised pursuant to GEH’s Freedom to Speak Up (“FTSU”) process (an anonymous process that GEH and other Trust had in place to allow employees to voice concerns).[45]The FTSU policy made clear its purpose was to help GEH keep improving the working environment for our staff and the services it provided to patients, doing so was in the best interests of its staff, public, patients, carers and the organisation and staff were encouraged to raise any issues at the earliest opportunity.[46]On 7 September 2022 Ms Deepa Masani who was part of GEH’s FTSU team sent an FTSU report to Mr Parr [297-298, 404-406]. Whilst we did not have before us a copy of what she was sent or her reply to Ms Khambay acknowledges that she was asked to comment on this by Mr Parr. On 10 October 2022 Mr Parr responded to the FTSU concerns [294-297]. Again, we were not taken to this (if it existed) but GEH told us Ms Khambay was spoken to by Mr Singh and Mr Parr about this in November 2022.[47]On 3 January 2023 Ms Khambay was appointed to a new role as “Head of Data Science (Systems)” [226]. As we state above, we address this in more detail in our determinations in relation to the two pay complaints she brings.[48]On Thursday 5 January 2023 an anonymous letter was received by Mr Khan [284-287]. Despite it seeking that it be treated confidentially on Monday 9 January 2023 Mr Khan shared its contents with Mr Aslam [284] who in turn shared it first with Mr Parr and then also with Mr Aslam with an instruction to share it with “Aneet, Himanshu and Louise but no further.”. We assume in addition to Ms Khambay that was referenced Himanshu Jagat and Louise Stanley who both worked in the data science team, Ms Stanley being a manager in the team. Mr Khan did not take HR advice on that. We highlight above (36) that Messrs Khan and Aslam owned a property together. We return to concerns GEH later had in that respect at (51). 9 / 112[49]Those concerns aside on 16 January 2023 Mr Khan announced a “listening exercise” would take place in the Information Department [301-302]. That lasted until May 2023.[50]In May 2023 GEH commissioned an Independent Review by Mark Dickens of GEH’s information department [341] as a result of three areas:- 50.1. Concerns raised with the Freedom to Speak Up Guardian, 50.2. Concerns raised via the Health & Wellbeing team, 50.3. Concerns raised with the Chief Finance Officer through the listening event.[51]Mr Khan explained [HK/19] that Ms Catherine Free, GEH’s acting Managing Director (who was previously its medical director) considered that due to his personal relationship with Mr Aslam outside of the Trust, he might be “too ‘close’ to the issues, and that an independent review should be carried out into the concerns that had been raised”. Dr Najam Rashid (Chief Medical Director) was appointed as commissioning manager and he in turn appointed Mr Dickens.[52]On 24 July 2023 Mr Dickens completed his report [350-367]. Amongst other matters it concluded:- “… Going forward Staff were asked about their ideas as to what might make working in the IT better. In a small number of cases, this was articulated as things could only get better if some people left. We were told that things were so bad that this was the only solution. However, other people did put forward some suggestions. …. Summary The Review Team would summarise working in the IT now as difficult for all concerned. As the Review Team identified at the beginning of this report there are two distinct groups whose views are extremely polarised. Some staff appear to find it intolerable and use strong words to articulate that. They do not like working in the IT now and don’t see it as getting better in the future. Other staff are far more positive and think the team is a good place to work. However, they get frustrated with the unwillingness of others to change but are more optimistic about the future. Views amongst the group that make up the majority of the staff are more mixed with some positive views about the team but some anxieties about workload etc. … It was clear that some attempts had been made to address the issues that had been raised in the FTSUG Report and the anonymous letter. … but this seems to have had little effect on 10 / 112 making the opinions of staff less polarised and those issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction of a group of staff. It is probably the case that there are less staff who are disaffected now than there were in January. One view about staff leaving, as we have documented, is that they have moved on because of securing opportunities elsewhere. The views of other staff were that those people left because they were unhappy in the Team. The Review Team had access to several exit interviews, [and other] documentation … The conclusion is that at least some people left because they were unhappy working in the IT. That might reduce the number of people who have concerns, but it does not resolve the issue for those who remain. … Recommendations [Whilst it] is not really a job for the Review Team to make recommendations for change. … The Review Team feel there are 4 critical issues that need to be addressed. If they are not, we believe that this will impede the development of the IT going forward. … 1 . There needs to be a clear plan that is shared and understood by all the staff in the IT. … 2. If the IT has a sense of what it wants to achieve and what it has to do to get there it needs to develop a workforce strategy alongside this. … 3. Issues around the management of the IT need to be addressed. We were told that senior managers within the IT have been given coaching. However, the Review Team found evidence of three issues around management of the Team . First, the people skills to manage staff appear to be lacking. Second, the application of Trust policies and procedures is inconsistent. Third, micromanagement is a behaviour that is rehearsed form the highest level and makes people feel controlled and unable to act independently. Some management training is in place, but this should be reviewed to ensure that it is looking at these three issues. It is not possible to say when or why the obvious friction within the IT started but the Review Team were of the opinion that some of the management decision that have been made, and continue to be made, have exacerbated the situation. This needs to change if the expectations of the current management team themselves are to be met. 4. We know that concerns have been raised in the past by the IT, but the Review Team were concerned that some staff would find it hard to raise issues now or in the future. The word “troublemakers” has been used by some managers and that 11 / 112 needs to stop. We are aware that there is a commitment to an “open door” policy but that will only work if staff feel that they will be heard, and the issue acted upon. They may also feel comfortable speaking to only one person rather than two. We understand that there was some frustration that people chose to raise their concerns with the FTSUG and that there was an anonymous letter sent direct to HKh. That may reflect a real concern about raising issues through the line management structure and potential retaliation. There must be a culture where staff can raise concern in safety without fear of any negative consequences.”
Summary
[53]Ms Khambay did not accept the review was fair and suggested it was biased yet when asked as to what it was that caused her to think that the only examples she gave related to her disagreeing with the outcome rather than any substantive challenge as to the person appointed, methodology adopted or rationale that underlay the outcome. In contrast Ms Hughes and Mrs Betteridge indicated it fairly reflected the position at the time.[54]On 7 August 2023 Mr Aslam was temporarily redeployed to work elsewhere whilst a Dignity at Work investigation was undertaken involving Mr Aslam. As a result, Mr Parr took on the line management of all of his direct reports, including the Ms Khambay. Ms Khambay met with Mr Parr and informed her of this [382]. We address this starting at (403) below.[55]At a meeting on 14 August 2023 Mr Khan informed the Information Team that a formal investigation pursuant to GEH’s dignity at work policy would be commenced. He followed that up with an email the following day [376].[56]At 10:00 am on Monday 21 August 2023 Ms Khambay emailed Mr Parr Michael copying in Sue Pike the Foundation’s FTSU guardian (and to whom Ms Masani reported) under the subject heading “Formal Sickness” [383]:- “Dear Michael, I am writing to inform you about my current health condition and the reason for my absence from work. Over the past few weeks, I have been dealing with escalating levels of workrelated stress, and unfortunately, it has reached a point where it has started to impact my physical and mental well-being. I have experienced prolonged, consistent defamation of character, racism, bullying, and harassment. After consulting with my GP, it has been recommended that I take time off to address and manage my stress levels effectively. Therefore, I need to take sick leave, to focus on my recovery. During this period, I intend to follow my doctor's advice and undergo any necessary treatments to ensure full recovery, including counselling. I will keep you updated on my progress and provide any necessary medical documentation.” 12 / 112[57]He replied at just after 4am on 25 August [382-383] “Thank you for sending me this email with regards to your current health status. I am sorry to hear that you have been feeling unwell for some time and whilst I appreciate you have been on leave for 2 weeks during the summer holidays, I was only made aware of how you were feeling when you returned from leave on 14th August 2023. When we met on 9th August, you had advised me that the interim changes to reporting lines and the events of the previous week had come as a shock and you needed to take some time away to process what was happening, which I agreed. We did not discuss however that you had been experiencing prolonged, consistent defamation of character, racism, bullying, and harassment. Of course, I am concerned about this and want to ensure that you are provided with the support that you need. I am not sure who these allegations refer to, however I want to assure you that it would be helpful to discuss this matter further. If you do not, at this stage feel comfortable discussing this with me, please seek advice from other colleagues including, People and Workforce, Union representative or Trust Convenor or Freedom to Speak up (acknowledging that your email has also been sent to Sue and the team).”[58]Amongst other matters he went on to supply details of wellbeing resources, suggest she complete a stress risk assessment and he would arrange to meet with her to discuss her absence under GEH’s long term sickness management policy as her absence would exceed 4 weeks.[59]On 18 September 2023 Ms Khambay was informed of the decision to commence a formal investigation into the management style and culture within the Information Team [465-466].[60]On 5 October 2023 Ms Khambay started early conciliation via ACAS.[61]The following day (6 October 2023) she submitted a grievance [475-518].[62]The grievance was investigated by a third party WorkforceOne. Various individuals interviewed and seven investigation meetings were held with Ms Khambay (15 November 2024 [649-664], 28 November 2024 [665-677], 20 December 2024 [678-682], 5 March 2025 [683-699], 1 May 2025 [700-716], 5 June 2025 [717-731] and 18 June 2025 [732-741]). Numerous others were attempted to be held, six were cancelled by Ms Khambay for a variety of reasons. The process was placed on hold from 8 January 2025 to 8 February 2025 at Ms Khambay’s request to accommodate a surgical procedure and from 13 March 2025 – 1 April 2025 due to the bereavement of a close family member. For those and other reasons there have been considerable delays. That is unhelpful.[63]As a result of that grievance the formal investigation was subsequently stayed pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance. 13 / 112[64]On 16 November 2023 Ms Khambay was sent her early conciliation certificate.[65]On 15 December 2023 Ms Khambay presented her claim to the Employment Tribunal.[66]The report into Ms Khambay’s grievance [811] was authored by Lisa Barclay, a Senior Workforce Solutions Manager at WorkforceOne. It was dated 31 July 2025. It relayed the background to events and recorded a formal investigation, undertaken by Mark Dickens from September 2023 date to 4 March 2024 and at that point the formal investigation process was adjourned, pending the investigation and outcome of Ms Khambay’s grievance. It does not explain why the grievance does not appear to have been addressed parallel to the formal investigation process or the delays more generally prior to WorkforceOne being commissioned on 11 July 2024
THE LAW
[67]We address the law concerning the pay complaints starting at (500) below. THE BURDEN OF PROOF[68]For complaints under the Equality Act 2010 the claimant has the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that he or she has suffered discrimination (a term which encompasses various types of complaint) and/or harassment. Section 136 provides, “… (2) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred. (3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision. …” HARASSMENT[69]Section 212(1) EqA provides that whilst an act can be argued as both harassment and discrimination if an act is found to be harassment it cannot be a detriment and thus form the basis for a discrimination complaint.[70]Tribunals are thus required to consider if any act argued as both as is harassment first and if that fails to then consider if it constitutes discrimination.[71]Harassment is prohibited by s.40 EqA. It is defined in s. 26 EqA. Where relevant, it provides as follows: “(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if— 14 / 112 (a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of— (i) violating B’s dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.(2) A also harasses B if— (a)A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and (b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).(3) A also harasses B if— (a) A or another person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassignment or sex, (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), and (c) because of B's rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct.(4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account— (a) the perception of B;? (b) the other circumstances of the case; (c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. 1(5) The relevant protected characteristics are— age; disability; gender reassignment; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.” That gives rise to the three questions Dhaliwal 2 posed. As the Court of Appeal 72. stated in Pemberton v Inwood 3 they need to be adapted to reflect the changes to the statutory regime following the enactment of the EqA. Three points hold:- 1 The predecessor provisions were slightly differently worded hence s. 3A(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976 provided “Conduct shall be regarded as having the effect specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) only if, having regard to all the circumstances, including in particular the perception of that other person, it should reasonably be considered as having that effect.” 2 Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] UKEAT/0458/08, [2009] IRLR 336 3 Pemberton v Inwood [2018] IRLR 542, [2018] EWCA Civ 564 per Underhill LJ 15 / 112 72.1. If the claimant does not perceive his/her dignity to have been violated, or an adverse environment 4 created, then the conduct should not be found to have had that effect. 72.2. If it was not reasonable for the conduct to be regarded as violating the claimant's dignity or creating an adverse environment for him or her, then it should not be found to have done so. 72.3. In forming views on each the Tribunal needs to consider all the circumstances[73]The words ”violating dignity” and “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, offensive” are an important control to prevent trivial acts causing minor upsets being caught by the concept of harassment and Tribunals must not cheapen the significance of these words 5. Thus, when undertaking that assessment:- “Not every racially slanted adverse comment or conduct may constitute the violation of a person’s dignity. Dignity is not necessarily violated by things said or done which are trivial or transitory, particularly if it should have been clear that any offence was unintended. While it is very important that employers, and tribunals, are sensitive to the hurt that can be caused by racially offensive comments or conduct (or indeed comments or conduct on other grounds covered by the cognate legislation to which we have referred), it is also important not to encourage a culture of hypersensitivity or the imposition of legal liability in respect of every unfortunate phrase.” 6[74]The words “related to” in the section have a broad meaning. The conduct complained of does not have to be “because of” the protected characteristic and will also include someone who is wrongly perceived as having a protected characteristic when in fact they do not 7. DIRECT DISCRIMINATION[75]Section 13 EqA provides that direct discrimination occurs where because, of a protected characteristic, a person is treated less favourably than another person has been or would be treated. That involves a comparison and for that comparison there must be no material difference in the circumstances of the case (save for the protected characteristic) 8. ‘Would treat’ allows for a hypothetical comparator in addition to an actual comparator.[76]Thus, it is not sufficient merely for a claimant to have a protected characteristic and to be treated less favourably; for a respondent to be guilty of direct discrimination the less favourable treatment must be done ‘because of’ the 4 This is the shorthand adopted in Dhaliwal for the cornucopia of epithets deployed in the statute. Although it is a convenient shorthand, it is important not to lose sight of the force of the particular adjectives used: see (5). 5 Elias LJ in Grant v HM Land Registry [2011] IRLR 748 CA at [47] 6 Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] UKEAT 0458/08, [2009] IRLR 336 at [22] 7 as highlighted by Laws and Sedley LJJ in English v Thomas Sanderson Ltd [2009] IRLR 206 CA 8 Section 23 EqA 16 / 112 protected characteristic. The protected characteristic also need not be the sole or even principal reason for the treatment so long as it has significantly influenced (that is one which is more than trivial) the reason for the treatment 9. TIME LIMITS[77]Section 123 EqA provides so far as is relevant:- “(1) … Proceedings on a complaint within section 120 may not be brought after the end of—(a) the period of 3 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or(b) such other period as the employment tribunal thinks just and equitable. … (3) For the purposes of this section— (a) conduct extending over a period is to be treated as done at the end of the period; (b) failure to do something is to be treated as occurring when the person in question decided on it. (4) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a person (P) is to be taken to decide on failure to do something— (a) when P does an act inconsistent with doing it, or (b) if P does no inconsistent act, on the expiry of the period in which P might reasonably have been expected to do it.”[78]The Tribunal has a wide discretion under EqA s.123(1)(b) The Tribunal is required to assess all relevant factors in the particular case, including in particular the length of, and the reasons for delay prejudice to the Respondent, whether extension would open up historic issues, and the impact of delay on the quality of the evidence 10.[79]The CA in Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434 reminds us that time limits are strict in employment claims, there is no presumption that tribunals consider their discretion to consider a claim out of time on just and equitable grounds, indeed the reverse is true, a tribunal cannot hear a complaint unless the applicant convinces it that it is just and equitable to extend time. 9 Nagarajan as applied in Igen v Wong at [37] 10 Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 23 at [32-33 & 37] 17 / 112 OUR FINDINGS[80]Having concluded her evidence given a number of concessions made by Ms Khambay the panel sought to clarify which complaints were pursued and those that were not. The issues identified below are those that remain after those concessions were made.[81]Having set out a chronological overview above we intend to deal with the various complaints in turn in date order. Before we do so the following are common themes from our findings below relating to Ms Khambay’s evidence.[82]The first points to note are that she gave either little or no detail of what was said or done as to the events complained of, when or where the events occurred, and who was present. Her explanation for not giving details was placed at the door of her not having lawyers, then her lawyers and even Judge Harding.[83]She appeared to accept no responsibility for the particulars attached to the claim form that she accepted she had read and approved prior to them being lodged, including details she now recanted from or had omitted. Despite having amended notes of the investigation meetings she readily accepted her amendments did not fairly reflect the contents of the meetings even after the amendments. As Mr Heard stated it is simply not believable that Ms Khambay would have amended the notes but would not have included the detail of the complaint in the amendment given its inherent significance.[84]The account she gave in her witness statement jumped around chronologically. When she was asked how sequentially she had come to the view she came to she repeatedly took us to events after the incident concerned suggesting that was the cause. She appeared to be unable to recall even approximate dates save where there was a document or diary to support it and changed her account when events occurred when documents were supplied casting doubts on those dates (see the example concerning the change of dates relating to Mr Huller when she realised Mr Huller was not there on the day in question.[85]As we state above Ms Khambay repeatedly sought to suggest that medical problems were the cause. Despite the repeatedly reminders we refer to during the trial to provide evidence in support from a suitably qualified medical professional the only document she provided was that prior to trial that we refer to at (14) above and (328) below.[86]The claimant consistently failed to directly answer questions and instead made submissions or provided a rationale for what she had done. In contrast at other points when giving oral evidence she embellished on what she had said in her grievance, her claim form, the details she later provided of her claim and her witness statement. We give various examples below including those concerning the offer of alcohol at the Winchester conference, her expansion regarding the “tie incident” including her suggestion she used the words “l’ll strangle you” and of the motivation of the group of what she described as “Indian” individuals who were of Hindu or Christian faith who took against her amongst others)). 18 / 112[87]Questions had to consistently be repeated and/or explained by the judge so the panel were satisfied Ms Khambay understood, only for her to recant from the evidence she had given when inconsistencies were pointed out.[88]Finally, we find her account on several topics simply implausible (the example that despite her suggestion she was not friends with Mr Parr she travelled all the way to Winchester to visit him just before Christmas 2022 and took him a present, only to then allege that someone who she claimed was seriously unwell at the time was discriminating against her. That is further reinforce by her suggestion orally that Mr Singh and his wife were there yet neither she nor Mr Aslam made any mention of that).[89]Tribunals are also conscious of the need not to use colloquialisms to describe the weight or nature of the evidence witnesses give. This was however a case where the epithet “making it up as she went along” applies. Accordingly, we place no weight on her account. THE CALLS FROM MR PARR TO MS KHAMBAY Between July and November 2021 Michael Parr frequently called the Claimant to discuss non-work related matters, as early as 8am and as late as 10pm, often daily, which the Claimant felt obliged to listen to. (Direct Discrimination (sex) [3.2.7], Harassment (sex) [5.1.7] & Sexual Harassment [6.2.4])[90]Ms Khambay accepts this occurred during the period she was acting up and the complaint relates to Mr Parr calling her to discuss non-work-related matters.[91]There is no record referred to that provides documentary evidence of a complaint being made at the time. Ms Khambay does not reference when she first made this complaint in her witness statement; it was not included in Ms Khambay’s October 2023 grievance.[92]The first time we can identify it was raised was in the particulars of claim, thus:- “8. On various other occasions, MP would make frequent phone calls to the Claimant varying from 8am to 11 in the evening confiding in the Claimant on non-work related matters. The Claimant felt that she was obliged to listen and that had she been a man she would not have been burdened with these responsibilities…”[93]Despite it not being included in the grievance it was raised in the grievance investigation meetings that followed. In the fourth grievance investigation meeting conduct by Lisa Barclay of WorkforceOne (see (66)) on 5 March 2025, the following conversation was recorded [694]: “LB: Asked for you have 1-1s? AK: Confirmed not in the sense of formal structured, would have many informal conversations stating from 8.00am and sometimes going through to 11.00pm.” 19 / 112[94]In the corrections to the minutes that she made Ms Khambay added the following: “These conversations were not exclusively work conversation but mainly personal conversations. I was MP emotional crutch at times. [Ms Khambay then went on to describe how she had dropped everything and travelled 300 miles to visit him in Winchester (see our findings concerning that allegation starting at (290))” [694][95]In reply to a question about her typical working hours the minutes record [697]: “Would be contacted by HK at 8.00am whilst on the school run, would advise him she was on school run, but he would ignore her and start to give her information for the day, including personal information. No opportunity to call back after school drop off, calendar was back to back meetings until 7 / 8 p.m. Would not be uncommon to have a debrief with MP in the car on the way home. Would regularly get home set up laptop whilst cooking and have conversations into the evening sometimes 11p.m.”[96]In her corrections to the minutes Ms Khambay added the following: “Multiple roles operated simultaneously, as well as pressures and demands and extremely excessive hours. Contact would be made by Michael Parr not Haq Khan.”[97]The correction of who the conversations were with aside Mr Heard argues that that:- 97.1. was a complaint about being over-worked and contacted out of normal working hours not about: 97.1.1. Mr Parr calling her to discuss non-work-related matters; 97.1.2. Mr Parr doing so frequently, or; 97.1.3. that this was, in some way, sex discrimination or of a sexual nature and 97.2. to reinforce the latter point, Ms Khambay made no mention of sex discrimination in any shape of form, which she would have this if Mr Parr had behaved in the way now alleged.[98]Whilst we do not agree with Mr Heard in relation to the regularity of the calls, we accept the remainder of the points he makes in that respect.[99]In her witness statement Ms Khambay said this “2 d. … 11/12/2022 - Parr’s inappropriate marriage remarks and repeated late-night calls 20 / 112 … 7. I was subjected to frequent sexist and culturally insensitive a. In late 2022, Parr made inappropriate comments suggesting that I should marry him. Around the same period, he subjected me to repeated late-night personal calls which blurred professional boundaries. …”[100]In contrast to the particulars of claim her witness statement thus only refers to late night calls and not those starting at 8 am. Nor do either her particulars of claim or her witness statement make any mention of Mr Aslam being witness to this complaint.[101]Whilst he does not date the calls in his witness statement Mr Aslam said this:- “3f. Mr. Parr's persistent personal communications placed a gendered emotional burden on Ms Khambay. These calls blurred professional boundaries and caused her visible distress.”[102]Thus, both Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam use the same phrase “blurred professional boundaries” and whilst neither describe what happened as harassment Ms Khambay referred to the remarks as inappropriate and Mr Aslam as this causing visible distress.[103]Neither Ms Khambay (in both her witness statement and claim form) nor Mr Aslam make any reference to Ms Abbas being present during the calls. Despite that Ms Abbas said this in her witness statement :- “7 Between September 2021 and when I left to return to university on 31st October 2022, I became aware of the nature of Mr. Pa[r]r's interactions with the Claimant. On numerous occasions. Mr. Par[r] would call the Claimant outside of normal working hours, sometimes as early as 8am and as late as 11pm. These calls were often unrelated to work and involved Mr. Parr confiding in her about personal matters. I would experience this first hand as we car shared, I observed the Claimants obligation to take these calls and listen, even when they were intrusive or inappropriate in timing or content. She indicated that she believed this wouldn't have happened if she were a man, and that she was being placed in this position because of her gender. She also shared that she did not feel safe or supported enough to report this behaviour, as she feared potential consequences. She described Mr. Parr as 21 / 112 having an authoritative and demanding manner, which made her reluctant to raise concerns formally. During this period, I noticed that the Claimant seemed increasingly anxious and distressed. She spoke of experiencing flashbacks, nightmares, and heightened alertness, which she attributed to the ongoing conduct and pressure she felt as a result of Mr. Parr's behaviour.”[104]Miss Abbas commenced her employment at GEH on 27 September 2021 Whilst Ms Abbas stated that she was a witness to the calls she did not say what Mr Parr had said or its context. Neither Ms Khambay (in either her witness statement and claim form) nor Mr Aslam make any direct reference to Ms Abbas being present during the calls. Given Ms Abbas told us she car shared with Ms Khambay, nor did Ms Abbas recount if Mr Aslam was also in the car.[105]In her oral evidence Ms Abbas resiled from her statement in which she stated that she heard calls as late as 11:00 pm. Ms Khambay and Ms Abbas in their witness statements also gave differing time frames for the period during which the calls took place.[106]Further, Miss Abbas expanded on her account at various points (for example the “Hassan” comment). For those reasons, save where supported elsewhere we place no weight on her account.[107]Miss Abbas like Mr Aslam has also brought a tribunal claim against GEH. She was asked she had known what to put in her witness statement. She told us that whilst she had not seen the case management order and list of issues she had spoken to Ms Khambay about it as they were facing similar issues and she had been asked by Ms Khambay to write a witness statement about it.[108]Finally, Miss Abbas repeatedly portrayed in her witness statement events she had been told about by others as events she had witnessed. One example amongst many was her responses regarding paragraph 15 of her witness statement. there she told us Ms Khambay was told not to share transport or to each lunch with Mr Aslam. She readily confirmed that she had been told those matters by Ms Khambay. For those reasons we place no weight on Miss Abbas’s account of this complaint.[109]Whilst we find Miss Abbas adopted what she was told by Ms Khambay unquestioningly and portrayed events in her witness statement as fact given when she was challenged, she resiled form those matters immediately we find she was not attempting to mislead. GEH’s policies and the duty to report and action complaints.[110]Given Mr Aslam says he was aware of this complaint it was incumbent on him as Ms Khambay’s line manager to have tried to address it. As he states GEH had a duty to protect its employees. As a manager so did he. 22 / 112[111]GEH’s grievance policy excludes from its ambit “Issues relating to inter- personal conflict, bullying & harassment or discrimination which should be addressed using the procedure contained in the Dignity at Work Policy” [786].[112]The grievance policy [788] makes clear the obligations on managers and employees:- “4.3 Responsibility of Managers. It is the responsibility of all line managers employed within the Trust to make sure that they address concerns locally as they are made aware from their staff to avoid matters being escalated. They need to make themselves aware of the Grievance Resolution Policy and Procedure and how this procedure should be applied to resolve any employee’s concerns that might arise. Managers are also responsible for attending any training relating to the Procedure. … 4.4 Responsibility of Employees It is the responsibility of each employee to make the appropriate manager aware of their concern as soon as possible, but within three months of the issue or becoming aware of the issue. The Trust does not believe that it is in anyone’s interest to delay when an individual believes that there is an issue that requires resolution.”[113]The Dignity at work policy [806-808] provided:- “2. Purpose … 2.2 Every colleague carries a personal responsibility for their own behaviour in relation to this policy and is responsible for ensuring their own conduct is in line with the standards set by the Trust, including the Trust’s EXCEL values and behavioural framework. 2.3 The policy is designed to support all colleagues to recognise behaviours that do not represent the values of the Trust and to also encourage prompt and informal resolution. 2.4 The Trust has a duty to implement this policy and all employees are expected to comply with it and ensure that such conduct does not occur. Appropriate disciplinary action may be taken against any employee who contravenes this policy. This policy also provides support to address issues of conflict at work when these occur. … 23 / 112 5.2 Raising Dignity at Work Concerns5.2.1 Any dignity at work complaint, including about bullying and/or harassment will be taken seriously. It will be treated in confidence, dealt with promptly and with sensitivity to the feelings of both the complainant(s) and the alleged perpetrator(s).5.2.2 Dignity at work complaints should be made as soon as possible after the alleged incident(s) have occurred to enable a reasonable chance of completing a thorough investigation into the issues raised.5.2.3 The perspective of all parties will be taken into account. There may be circumstances where the alleged perpetrator(s) also has concerns that are relevant to the issues which have been raised against them. In such circumstances the decision may be taken to consider these concerns as part of the process.”[114]Mr Aslam gave no detail of what he did to comply with those obligations. He suggested to us that the number of policies staff were expected to familiarise themselves with at induction was prohibitive and thus they were not read. Ms Khambay did not demur and stated she only familiarised herself with a policy when an issue arose. We understood her to mean that she read it for the first time as opposed to refreshing her memory.[115]In contrast Mr Beetham stated how he had read the policies on induction and understood the importance of them. Mr Beetham suggested Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay chose not to follow policies generally (see (146)).[116]We are not in a position to comment on that issue generally. However, two potential conclusions where a senior manager (which Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay both were) failed to understand the principles behind or impact of a policy is that that manager had either not read the policy or was minded to disregard it/follow it. Clearly, they are just two conclusions that could be drawn amongst many. Another is that the manager had not understood the principles that underlay the policy. We address an example where Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam failed to understand the impact of a policy, what it required concerning Mrs Buckler’s appraisal and the impact of it upon Mrs Buckler having been pointed out, did nothing to address that (see our findings starting at (255)).[117]Mr Aslam was an experienced NHS manager and thus the principles of those policies (even if he had not read them as he was obliged to) would have been familiar to him. He referenced at (3e) of his witness statement the responsibilities GEH had in consequence. We find that both Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay were or ought to have been familiar with the policies and the rights and responsibilities they gave rise to.[118]Both allege the reason they did not formalise and/or pursue their grievance was that would have been the end of their careers. Not only did Ms Khambay raise a grievance but she also brought a Tribunal claim and pursued it to final 24 / 112 hearing. We do not know the detail of what happened in Mr Aslam’s case but he also brought a Tribunal his claim and pursued it to final hearing. from what he told us he appears to be in the process of returning to work. Ms Khambay remains employed. There is no reason to suggest she will not be returning to work.[119]Had they been concerned for their careers as they say they could have raised anonymous FTSU complaints. Neither makes any mention of doing so.[120]Save in one instance (see (235)) Ms Khambay gave no detail how she or Mr Aslam had escalated complaints and when this occurred. She gave no good reason why she did not. For those reasons alone we find that these events did not occur as is alleged.[121]Ms Khambay should have pursued her informal grievances and/or raised formal grievances if informal grievances had not been actioned as she alleges. Ms Aslam as her manager knowing of the facts that underlay them likewise should have pursued them on her behalf. Save for the one example we give at (235) neither gave us any examples they did so. We address that one example below. As to the other examples we find the reason Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam did not raise pursue the grievances was because the events either did not occur as alleged and/or they did not perceive them as such at the time. MR PARR FREQUENTLY CALLING THE CLAIMANT (CONT.)[122]Given these calls are alleged to have occurred whilst Ms Khambay was acting up it is unsurprising Mr Parr called Ms Khambay at the start and end of the working day to brief/de-brief her and provide her with support. Given she was relatively new to GEH it would have been remiss of him not to do so. It is thus entirely understandable that the complaint does not reference calls of that nature being made.[123]When asked in oral evidence whether she was a work colleague and also a friend of Mr Parr Ms Khambay made it clear in her oral evidence that their relationship was a professional working relationship only, she rejected the idea they became good friends and also rejected absolutely that Mr Parr, Mr Aslam and her were good friends out of work. In contrast Mr Parr told us “3. I would also occasionally socialise with the Claimant and other team members outside of work, for example we would go out for meals as a team. I would describe my working relationship with the Claimant as good.”[124]What Ms Khambay told us in her oral evidence is not what she said at the first grievance investigation meeting on 15 November 2024 [655]: “Throughout the period when Khalil was off sick, she had ran the department as an interim and had a good friendship with Michael… “[125]Orally she told us she would have said relationship but there were too many anomalies to correct and accepted she had not corrected it. When talking 25 / 112 about October 2022 (a year later) [657] Ms Khambay went on to confirm that “she didn’t feel the relationship changed” [659]. She sought orally to explain that meant her working relationship only.[126]Given the nature of some of the amendments made if that minute did not accurately reflect what she felt at the time we find Ms Khambay would have corrected. She did not. We find that is an example of what was a repeated theme on Ms Khambay’s behalf; her seeking to portray at trial events that could undermine her claim in a different light to the way she did previously.[127]We find Mr Parr, Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay were friends as well a colleagues as the events of December 2022 to Winchester demonstrate (see our findings starting at (290)).[128]Similarly, Ms Khambay rejected the idea that she and Mr Aslam were good friends and solely had a mutual working relationship prior to March 2025 when they had both become “institutionally isolated”. That is at odds with the events of December 2022 and them sharing a car, her taking the same name as him and what we find was the obvious respect she had for him. Further, whilst on Ms Khambay’s account Mr Aslam solely reviewed her grievance rather than as GEH suggests drafting it for her, either way Mr Aslam’s email of 19:15 on 5 October enclosing the text of a grievance to Ms Khambay leads us to conclude that he did.[129]That being so it is natural those work-related discussions morphed into nonwork-related matters as Mr Parr describes: “13.6 … We were a very busy team and so we often all worked longer hours. However, I note the period that the Claimant refers to is when she was first acting up and when Mr Aslam was very ill in hospital. Therefore, we did have some non-workrelated conversation during this time, specifically about Mr Aslam’s health. Sometimes we talked about other non-work - related matters, such as our children, but I did not call her specifically to talk about these matters, they would just come up in conversation, as with other work colleagues. The Claimant in turn shared details about her personal life with me. I consider these are normal discussions with work colleagues. At no point did she raise that she felt uncomfortable with the conversations with myself, or anyone else, as far as I am aware. …”[130]If Ms Khambay had felt those conversations were inappropriate as Mr Parr states she, Mr Aslam (and for that matter albeit to a lesser extent Miss Abbas) would have raised them at the time. They did not.[131]For all those reasons we place no weight on the account of Ms Khambay, Mr Aslam and Miss Abbas and despite his non-attendance prefer the evidence of Mr Parr.[132]We find Mr Parr would have treated any colleague in the same material circumstances as Ms Khambay as he did with her; her sex played no part in 26 / 112 that. Further, we find Ms Khambay did not perceive the calls in the way she alleges. In both respects if she had she, Mr Aslam (or possibly Miss Abbas) would have complained about them at the time. They did not. THE ALLEGED INCIDENT INVOLVING MR BEETHAM AND MRS BUCKLER May 2022 – August 2023 Maxine Buckler and Brett Beetham were speaking in the corridor and on the Claimant’s approach they ceased talking and looked red-faced making it apparent that the Claimant had been the subject of the conversation. Direct Discrimination (race) [2.2.1(c)] & (sex) [3.2.2(a)][133]This was originally also argued as discrimination based on religion and/or belief but Ms Khambay orally accepted that was not so and that claim was not pursued.[134]Ms Buckler was line managed by Ms Khambay from around August 2021 to May 2022, when her immediate Manager, Michelle Wells left the Trust and Mr Khalil Aslam (Associate Director of Information and Performance) was off sick.[135]Mr Beetham was never directly line managed by Ms Khambay[136]Ms Khambay accepted this allegation (as stated in the list of issues) does not appear in the claim form, her witness statement or her grievance. There is no documentary evidence that she complained about this alleged incident at the time.[137]The closest that we come to it is in paragraph 5 of her particulars of claim in what we will describe as the allegation that she “felt ignored, sidestepped, and talked about”. That said there is no mention of Ms Buckler and Mr Beetham in it:- “5. Mr Joseph Buckler, a Data Scientist, left employment with the Respondent on or around July 2022. Upon his departure, the behaviour of some colleagues significantly changed, with them becoming very negative. The Claimant felt ignored, sidestepped, and talked about. For example, when she would go into the Informatics office to delegate work, she would be ignored. Similarly, some of her colleagues were looking for reasons to criticise her. When the Claimant expressly raised these matters with Mr Parr, he told her that it was because she is Asian and they are a team of white colleagues. Messrs Khan and Parr were fully aware of these inappropriate behaviours and failed to support or put appropriate measures in place to address these matters.”[138]Mr Joseph Buckler was the son of Mrs Buckler. We were told they did not work together, go into work together and he was not line managed by his mother.[139]In her grievance [495-496] Ms Khambay expanded on that generalised allegation:- 27 / 112 “12b. The negativity from the Data Quality team stemmed from Joseph Buckler [Data Scientist], who left George Eliot NHS Hospital Trust on the 4th of August 2022, for a promotion elsewhere. At this stage, Maxine Buckler [Data Quality Manager], Joseph Buckler’s mother became quite angry and grieved due to her son's departure. 12c. Due to Joseph Buckler’s departure his closest friends, both inside and outside of work Allan Clay [Data Scientist], Brett Beetham [Data Scientist] and Imran Khalifa [Senior Data Scientist] all became angry and grieved. Joseph Buckler, Allan Clay and Imran Khalifa commenced employment together approximately ten years ago. 12d. Once Joseph Buckler had exited the organisation, the behaviours of the mentioned in point 12b and 12c changed significantly. I felt ignored, sidestepped, talked about, and the feeling of being recorded by mobile phones when I would go into the Informatics office to delegate work and instructions would be ignored. It felt as if reasons were being found to have a go at me or to report something about me, it seemed like I was being set up. Haq Khan and Michael Parr were aware of this and failed to support or put appropriate measures in place to address this.”[140]The first time this specific complaint about Mr Beetham and Mrs Buckler speaking about Ms Khambay arose was when the list of issues were agreed at the case management hearing on 10 October 2024.[141]At the fifth meeting to investigate her grievance on 1 May 2025 Ms Khambay was asked questions about her grievance complaint about Louise Stanley [701]. She was then asked [703] about Ms Stanley unearthing issues with staff:- “AK: Confirmed working in management can be quite lonely, Louise had situated herself to work in the main office with data quality and analytical staff (Maxine Buckler and Brett Beetham and Alan Clay), would be drawn into conversations, entertained them instead of crushing negativity. AK felt like it was racially motivated as the kind of people drawn in were white and had raised their issues through FTSU. Believed Louise had also attended a separate Christmas dinner which was not exclusive to all.”[142]Having been asked why she thought it was racially motivated Ms Khambay responded [703-704] that Louise:- “…. Would go on breaks with Lynne Hughes and Katie Redditch who are part of data quality team, this was not a team she managed. Louise appeared to have built relationships with that team and always chose to sit with them at meetings or 28 / 112 lunchtime events. Was a noticeable atmosphere and division especially with Maxine, Lynne and Katie. Louise would join them and sit in one corner, AK would try to keep it social with everyone however felt when she approached them, she was met with an uncomfortableness silence and felt there was an atmosphere. It was clear to Aneet that she wasn’t welcome. LB: Asked do you think it was just with you? AK: From what she observed it was just with her, conversations would stop if she walked up the corridor. Would ask Louise for lunch and Louise would decline stating she had other plans, AK would then see her having lunch with other people, felt she was deliberately avoiding her.”[143]Thus, Ms Khambay gave no detail of when this was (although we know Ms Stanley only worked at GEH from earliest very late 2022/January 2023 to June 2023) who the conversations that stopped were between or for that matter any reference to Mrs Buckler or Mr Beetham.[144]It was suggested to Mr Beetham he had engaged in speaking about Ms Khambay behind her back and in public areas. Whilst he accepted he and Ms Buckler (“Max”) did talk in corridor occasionally any discussions about Ms Khambay and the issues he had with her were restricted to formal 1-2-1 meetings with his managers. He flatly denied that he had spoken about others in public in the way alleged and further indicated he only raised such matters with Mrs Buckler when she was his line manager.[145]We find that was the appropriate way to raise such concerns. He accepted on one occasion there had been a discussion about in the office when a colleague, Nicola Winfield had returned in tears from a meeting with both Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay, but that was the only one.[146]Mr Beetham accepted he had a view of Ms Khambay (and Mr Aslam) because they had sought to override agreements reached when he joined GEH as to time off for various public and other duties and in particular their failure to follow policies/procedure and to provide supporting evidence for the assertions they made when asked.[147]Mrs Buckler rejected the idea that she was aggrieved at her son’s departure. She told us that she encouraged him to hand his notice in. She told us at the time he handed in his notice he had an interview for a role but had not secured it, he did afterwards and is still working there now 3 years on.[148]She also relayed an incident (prior to which she had never spoken to her son about work) where he had felt unfairly treated and not listened to. It was suggested that she had strong personal feelings towards Ms Khambay. She replied that she had feelings but not in relation to the way her son was treated but because she had seen lots of upset, not just to him and that things had been awful for everyone.[149]Mrs Buckler told us that her relationship with Ms Khambay went downhill in May 2023 following the listening exercise. The judge’s note records:- 29 / 112 “Everything changed after I met Haq in May 2022 both Khalil and C changed towards me Haq and I spoke Then Haq and Khalil I then spoke to Khalil I felt initially v helpful Felt got somewhere and that's what team needed Following morning I got email from him I couldn’t forward or print off Sent to me and Khan but in very diff tone”[150]Apparently, the email was referenced (and included in the bundle) in Mr Aslam’s case but not this case.[151]With regards to the comment concerning Mr Aslam, that is consistent with the suggestion from Mr Khan that Mr Aslam reacted defensively to adverse comments. In response to a challenge why it took so long (6 months) to commission an internal review Mr Khan responded “Not just me taking action but you responding … We had con You needed to be open You did some of that I fed back the results You being defensive I said I know you feel attacked - part of role to invite comments and feedback Put coaching in place for you both Did internal leadership programme to review policies Re concerns raised - how people being managed About providing support And for you to change support”[152]In his section headed “Observations on Discrimination and Harassment” Mr Aslam said this:- “3a. I witnessed that following Joseph Buckler's departure in July 2022, certain colleagues began treating Ms. Khambay with hostility, ignoring her authority. These included Maxine Buckler, Brett Beetham, Lynne Betteridge and Katie Hughes. I witnessed the behavior [sic.] of some colleagues significantly 30 / 112 change, the became very augmentative and critical. I observed as Ms Khambay was repeatedly ignored, sidestepped, and talked about by her teams. I witnessed her attend the Informatics office to delegate work, and be directly ignored. I was present when Ms Khambay raised these concerns with Mr Parr, who informed her that it was because she was Asian and they are a team of white colleagues. I can contest that both Khan and Parr were fully aware of these inappropriate behaviors,[sic.] that Ms Khambay faced by the team daily. Following the departure of Mr Joseph Buckler, the Claimant was ignored, sidestepped and talked about, Maxine Butler has spoken to a Maarya Abbas and Hema Raju and said if you have any issues or concerns do not speak to the Claimant and to speak to FTSU instead. As a result a number of people were going to FTSU to have their exit interviews. … e. I directly observed the emotional impact of these events.[153]Mr Aslam thus uses exactly the same phase in his witness statement as in the complaint although Ms Khambay does not. Other than the generalised allegation neither give any real detail.[154]As to the comment “because she is Asian and they were a team of white colleagues” Mr Parr said this:- 11. … I did not say this to the Claimant or anything similar. The Claimant alleges that these are acts of direct discrimination on the grounds of race and/or religious belief and/or sex. The Claimant alleges that the alleged failure to support and put appropriate measures in place is also an act of harassment on the grounds of sex. I was not aware of any of these allegations below and they were not brought to my attention by the Claimant.[155]Mr Khan makes precisely that point:- “25. … It is important to note that Mr Aslam was the Claimant’s line manager, and I would therefore expect that if she had any concerns, she would raise them with him in the first instance. Michael is Mr Aslam’s line manager, and I would expect that if Mr Aslam had not resolved the issue, the Claimant would then raise it with Michael. It would not be appropriate for me to intervene given there are a number of line management levels between me and the Claimant.”[156]In addition to Ms Khambay, Mr Aslam (or for that matter Miss Abbas) failing to provide dates or detail, Ms Khambay does not say how and when she raised it 31 / 112 with Mr Aslam. She as both an employee and manager had responsibilities to do so.[157]Had this event happened as alleged for the same reasons as we give starting at (110) it was incumbent on both Mr Khambay and Mr Aslam to have reported it and to have followed it up if not actioned. The fact they did not do adds further weight to the argument this event did not occur as alleged.[158]In addition, we find both Mrs Buckler and Mr Beetham were highly convincing and measured witnesses. We preferred their version of events. Both were concerned to do things in the right way and follow process (see also (320)).[159]Both genuinely felt let down by the way they were treated.[160]For reasons we go on to (at 259 & 359) we find Mrs Buckler was singled out and picked on by Mrs Aslam and Ms Khambay. We find that was as a response to what she said as part of the listening exercise. THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE WINCHESTER CONFERENCE[161]Two complaints concern the Healthcare IT Hub conference in Winchester on 12/13 July 2022:- (1) Mr Singh sought to put pressure on the Claimant into going for a swim with him. Direct Discrimination (sex) [3.2.6], Harassment (sex) [5.1.6] & Sexual Harassment [6.2.3][162]This was originally also argued as race discrimination but Ms Khambay orally accepted that was not so and that claim was not pursued.[163]In her grievance of 6 October 2023 [511] 15 months after the incident the allegation was put as Mr Singh “… coercing me to go swimming with him.”.[164]In her particulars of claim lodged on 15 December 2023 [14] the allegation was put as: “… Mr Singh sought to pressure C into going for a swim with him. C felt uncomfortable by this.”[165]At the sixth grievance investigation meeting (5 June 2025) the following was recorded [728]: “LB: Whilst at a conference in Winchester Sid Singh coerced Aneet to go swimming with him. [Ms Khambay was then asked to provide further details of what happened] AK: Noted at the conference Sid was cajoling her to go swimming, made her feel uncomfortable. LB: Asked how was Sid cajoling you, what happened? AK: Was saying to her, ‘come on, just jump in the pool’, she replied she didn’t have her swimming clothes. As a Muslim 32 / 112 woman it was not appropriate for her, not cultural, Sid was aware of this and pushed the issue with her which was sexist and racist in her opinion…”[166]In her witness statement Ms Khambay put it thus:- “2d “Harassment (s.26 EqA) … ● 12/07/2022 …. Singh swimming invitation (conference)” and “6. On the same occasion, I was invited by a male executive to go swimming, which was inappropriate and contrary to my religious and cultural boundaries.”[167]Mr Aslam described the event in almost identical terms in his witness statement :- “3d. At the Healthcare IT Conference on the evening of 11th July 2022, …. I also heard Mr Sid Singh invite her to go swimming, which was inappropriate and contrary to her cultural and religious boundaries. e. I directly observed the emotional impact of these events.[168]Thus, as time went on more emphasis was placed on the reason for the treatment and the basis for that being religious belief discrimination (which was not pleaded to or part of the list of issues).[169]In the context of Ms Khambay alleging the offer (however it was phrased) was culturally inappropriate because she was a Muslim, given she had converted to Islam, she gave no details in her witness statement of when she converted and made that known to her colleagues or otherwise when she gave indicators that might acts as a indication she had done so such, as starting to wear a headscarf (as she did before us). That detail had to be elicited by the Tribunal.[170]Even then whilst she told us she undertook her Shahada with her two children on 7 January 2022 she did not state who she had told of that and when and could not point to when she started wearing her headscarf. She suggested it after her Shahada but also gave a date of July 2022. Yet when she was asked, she confirmed she did not wear a headscarf at the time of the Winchester conference in mid July 2022. When the issue how her colleagues would have known she had converted was raised in cross examination she stated that when asked if she wanted a drink that she was a Muslim and didn’t drink.[171]We sought to clarify how it was argued that swimming was culturally inappropriate. Ms Khambay accepted that she had no objection to swimming, the issue was she had to be appropriately dressed, that she had no swimming gear with her, Mr Singh told her she could get some from the shop. She stated that she told him it’s not that simple and she needed to be appropriately 33 / 112 dressed. She added that Mr Singh asked on more than one occasion on first evening. Again, that was core information omitted on a key issue.[172]Ms Khambay accepted Mr Singh had not asked Mrs Kumar so in the context of the basis of the complaint being sex and no mention of sex was made we sought to clarify why the this was related to sex. Ms Khambay told us Mr Singh had raised innuendo, sat uncomfortably close to her gave her no personal space and hence she thought it was more sexual. She elaborated considerably relaying matters orally that should have been in her witness statement. This was one of many examples where having realised that there were difficulties with her claim she sought to elaborate, relaying facts that despite the numerous opportunities to do so, had not previously been raised.[173]In the light of those points and as this appeared to be argued as direct discrimination and harassment based on religion and belief the judge asked Ms Khambay why she had had not referenced sex in paragraph 6 of her witness statement. She accepted she had not but did not explain why. The judge checked that the claim was solely based on religion to which she responded that she had converted from Christianity to Islam and asserted that being a Muslim in Indian culture was less acceptable than being an Indian Christian and Indian colleagues were discontented with her converting to Islam.[174]Ms Khambay accepted that she had had ample opportunities to say that previously and that this was the first time she had raised it. She was then asked if she believed that was so why had she not said so in her particulars of claim or witness statement. Following a long pause, she said no comment before stating that she thought she had alluded to it or explained it.[175]In closing Ms Khambay accepted that, as that was the basis for the complaint, it must fail and was withdrawn. That aside we intend to deal with it.[176]Mr Singh told us:- “6) The Claimant alleges that on or around 12/13 July 2022, at the same conference, I sought to put pressure on her into going for a swim with me. I deny this completely. I did not ask her to go for a swim; I personally avoid interacting with others socially in the evenings at conferences. I accept that I went for a swim and there were many other conference attendees also swimming, however, I do not recall seeing the Claimant there.”[177]Orally he accepted he went swimming after the conference before the evening meal but did not invite Ms Khambay. He told us that that he went alone and Mr Rathod, Mr Srivastava and Aamir Jusufzaai were already in the pool. In contrast Mr Srivastava told us he did not witness this.[178]Orally Mr Aslam also expanded on his written account; he told us he asked Mr Singh why he only invited Ms Khambay and that Mr Singh giggled in response. He accepted he made no reference to this in his witness statement but could not provide a cogent explanation why not. 34 / 112[179]Ms Khambay’s account how she was asked to go swimming varied considerably. She stated that coerced and invited were the same. That is not so. They are fundamentally different. That she thought that, causes us to question the weight we should place on her perception generally. As does Mr Aslam describing the offer as an invitation.[180]To reinforce that further, she used the words cajoled and “sought to pressure” to describe what had happened. She does not set out the precise words used, how they were said and how many times the offer was made (the latter is particularly relevant in the context of cajoled).[181]Again had this event happened as alleged as we say starting at (110) it was incumbent on both Mr Khambay and Mr Aslam to have reported it and to have followed it up if not actioned. The fact they did not do adds further weight to the argument this event did not occur as alleged.[182]Given the changes to both her account and that of Mr Aslam we find that this event did not happen.[183]The changes and inconsistencies in her account led us to conclude that even if Mr Singh had specifically invited her for a swim she did not satisfy us based on what she said happened before that, that Mr Singh knew or ought to have known she had become a Muslim before he invited her for a swim.[184]Even if we were wrong on that, the invitation, that Mr Aslam accepted it was, we find was intended as an inclusive remark between two work colleagues who, we were told, were in a WhatsApp group (see (298)) and friends outside of work (although that was denied).[185]Again, we find this was an example where having realised there were difficulties with aspects of her claim Ms Khambay elaborated on matters giving details not previously provided despite her having had ample opportunities to provide that detail previously.[186]That missing detail also went to the core of the discrimination/harassment complaints. Even if we had accepted Ms Khambay’s account, that would not have shifted the burden of proof to GEH. That would have required the detail of what was said, manner and context to link that to a protected characteristic; in this context an invitation or absence of an invitation could have both been perceived as a slight. The context and way it was done were vital elements. Absent that the detail, we find she has not shifted the burden such that the offer or absence of an offer was in any sense connected to her sex, religion or race. (2) Bipinkumar Rathod, Meena Kumari, pressured the Claimant to drink alcohol by making comments such as “Aneet can I get you a drink”, “go on have a drink” and swirling glassing filled with alcohol in front of her repeatedly. Direct Discrimination (religion/belief) [2.2.4][187]This was originally also argued as race discrimination but Ms Khambay orally accepted that was not so and that claim was not pursued. 35 / 112[188]This complaint as set out in the list of issues included six named individuals, the two named above and four others against whom the complaints were withdrawn: Sid Singh, Michael Parr, Manoj Srivastava and Shivaraj Huller.[189]In the particulars of claim [15], it was put thus:- “4. On or around 12/13 July 2022, the Claimant attended the Healthcare IT Hub Conference in Winchester. At the event, she felt pressured to drink alcohol by Sid Singh, Bipinkunar [sic] Rathod, Manoj Srivastava and Meena Kumary owing to numerous comments being made suggesting that they could get her a drink and moving their glasses towards her. The Claimant does not drink alcohol for health and religious reasons. ….”[190]Thus, over time the complaint has gone from being against 4 individuals in the claim form, 6 in the list of issues and now only 2.[191]In Ms Khambay’s witness statement she did not name any participants and instead said this:- … ● 12/07/2022 - Winchester encouraged to have alcoholic beverage and toasting in a wine bar environment … d. Harassment (s.26 EqA) … ● 12/07/2022 - Rathod/ Kumari alcohol pressure; Singh swimming invitation (conference) … 6 In July 2022, at a Healthcare IT Conference, colleagues pressured me to consume alcohol, despite their knowledge of my religious beliefs as a Muslim.”[192]Within paragraph 2d of her grievance [507] Ms Khambay referred to the meeting that took place with Mr Khan on 3 May 2023. That paragraph went on to set out what was asserted to have been what Himanshu Jagat told Ms Khambay in an alleged conversation which took place after the 3 May 2025 meeting, namely: “3d…Himanshu went in to great detail and confirmed the basis of this stemmed from a Healthcare IT Expert Hub conference, which took place in Winchester, on the 12th and 13th of July 2022. I attended the conference with Michael Parr, Sid Singh, Khalil Aslam”. 36 / 112[193]Ms Khambay told us that the rumours that she asserted were spread about her and Mr Aslam that were the basis for several of the complaints that we address starting at (208) emanated out of this conference. She told us she was informed of this by Mr Himanshu Jagat a meeting she had with Mr Khan in May 2023 (see (332) and the paragraphs that follow). We address this starting at (210). Her grievance continued thus:- “3e – These were all Senior Medical Practitioner Consultants, Surgeons and Senior Managers without our organisation… What was this perception based on the fact that I did not join the group to consume alcohol, that I did not drink alcohol, that I refused to stay up all night drinking as they did, was it because I decided to retire to my room at a reasonable time after dinner? That I refused to go swimming when asked? Or that I was able to knock back advances when they occurred? What wrong did I commit or was it that I had acted professionally and did not get involved with anything unprofessional and so I was victimised for being a strong Muslim woman?”[194]That was the only reference we could locate in her grievance to “alcohol”. She briefly mentions it at the sixth grievance investigation meeting (5 June 2025) [721 top] before going on to say this [729]: “At the same event people were swishing alcohol from their glasses in front of her, she felt deliberately making her feel attacked and victimised and violated, were all culturally aware of her conversion.”[195]Mr Aslam’s account of that event was this:- “3d. At the and religious boundaries Healthcare IT Conference on the evening of 11th July 2022, I observed colleagues including Mr Rathod and Ms Kumari pressuring Aneet to drink alcohol and pushed their glasses against her cup of tea, toasting despite her Muslim faith. .... 3e. I directly observed the emotional impact of these events.[196]Thus, Mr Aslam dates events to a different date (11 July 2022) to Ms Khambay (12/13 July 2022) and contrary to what Ms Khambay stated alleged they pushed their glasses against her cup of tea and raised a toast.[197]Miss Kumari and GEH accept she and others were drinking alcohol and invited Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam to join them for a drink, the offer was meant to be inclusive and no pressure was applied. Having told us that the conference was the first time she met the claimant she said this:- 37 / 112 “8) … I understand that the Claimant alleges that this the comments were made because of her race and/or religious belief. I deny this allegation. I was at the conference for two nights, along with Michael, Bipin, the Claimant and Mr Aslam. Most attendees attended only one night. Bipin and I travelled together the night before the conference and joined the Claimant and Mr Aslam for dinner before returning to our hotel. Later at the hotel, Bipin and I were on the roof terrace and invited the Claimant and Mr Aslam to join us for a drink. My offer was meant to be inclusive, irrespective of the drink choice and I made a general offer of getting them a drink, not necessarily an alcoholic drink. I was aware that the Claimant and Mr Aslam are Muslim and abstained from alcohol, and so I made a conscious effort to respect their beliefs while ensuring they did not feel excluded from the social gathering. Mr Aslam indicated he did not consume alcohol and had ordered tea for him and the Claimant. I respected their choice and bought a drink for myself and Bipin. When the drink arrived I said ‘cheers’ to Bipin, but not the Claimant or Mr Aslam. We spent around ten minutes talking together and I then excused myself. I deny that I was encouraging the Claimant to drink alcohol; I made a general offer of a drink but that was it. I respected their choice to have tea. I deny that any comment I made was because of the Claimant’s race and/or religious belief. On the second night, myself, Bipin, Manoj Srivastava (Chief Clinical Informatics Officer) and Shivaraj Huller (Senior Clinical Digital Charge Nurse) were having some drinks in the hotel bar. Michael, Sid, the Claimant and Mr Aslam were sat separately in the hotel lobby preparing for a presentation they were due to deliver the next day. I recall that me, Bipin, Manoj and Shivaraj went to a Thai restaurant for dinner. We later found out that Michael, Sid, the Claimant and Mr Aslam had been out for food together separately. After dinner, me, Bipin, Manoj and Shivaraj went to the beer garden outside the hotel as it was a sunny evening and the four of us were drinking alcohol. We were networking with other attendees at the conference. The others remained in the lobby and at no point did they come and join us, except for Sid who joined us for around 15 minutes at around 11.30pm before he went to bed. I did not offer the Claimant a drink as I did not speak to her on this occasion. I deny that I was swirling my glass or trying to encourage the Claimant to drink, and I deny I made the alleged comments.”[198]Mr Srivastava said this:- 5) … I remember attending this conference, but I had minimal interaction with the Claimant. I recall Dr Shanzay Bukhari, who also doesn’t drink alcohol also being sat at the table; it isn’t out of the ordinary. Aneet was not sitting on our table though. I 38 / 112 don’t recall anyone specifically offering to get the Claimant a drink. I imagine there was general conversation and if this was asked it was probably just being polite. The offer to get someone a drink could be harmless; it could mean a soft drink. I didn’t ask the Claimant if I could get her a drink, nor did I suggest she should have one. I also dispute swirling my glass in front of her at any point of time. I stayed overnight at the conference but did not meet the Claimant after the conference in any social capacity.”[199]Given the way questions put to Miss Kumari went beyond what Ms Khambay had said, the differences in her account and between what she and Mr Aslam had said Ms Khambay was asked to give her account of what happened. This is the judge’s note of what she said:- “had meal at conference went upstairs you [Miss Kumari] and Bipin there I went to rooms to freshen up we came down to meet in foyer I came down and saw Aslam, Parr and Singh - all walking around You [Miss Kumari] and Bipin were sat down at a circular table Aslam and I came and sat with you You then said I'm going to get drinks and asked if anyone wanted I didn’t wear a headscarf at the time I said I'm Muslim I don’t drink Aslam made it clear I got tea from area they sold tea and coffee Sat down You were quite happy, engaged and excited and proceeded to “cheers me” with galas as with everyone Because I said I don’t drink that was really offensive Aslam - no different [question asked re time] 8 to 10 pm - nearer 9 to 10 pm Parr and Singh - sat on a table on one side and Manoj and Shivraj on a separate table on the other Parr and Singh not drinking 39 / 112 can’t recall if Manoj drinking [question asked about meals being taken together] Meals together all sat on same table Who was drinking at dinner Bipin and Mena can’t recall if anyone else Michael and Sid didn’t drink I felt they understood they knew I didn’t drink alcohol been out twice And alcohol provided as part of package [for evening meal only and only wine] in centre of the table - order drinks separately Cheers glass - offense was alcohol could have come on me or into tea cup Cause offense What was Mena drinking - I don’t know wine glass - lightish colour Clinked glass with tea“[200]That said at no time did Ms Khambay allege that there was any physical contact between drinking vessels, that alcohol did splash on her, or that she asked/knew what Miss Kumari (or Mr Rathod) were drinking and if it was alcohol. Instead, she presumed it was.[201]Miss Kumari in response said this according to the judge’s note:- “me and Bipin came to table on night pre conf I didn’t clink or touch glass and I do not drink wine so not drinking in a wine glass tables 5ft diameter Drink at restaurant checked into hotel went upstairs saw them sitting down joined them [Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay], with Bipin They said no they had ordered tea Tea was same place as bar I ordered 2 alcoholic drinks one for me and one for Bipin they were still waiting for tea At no point did she tell me she was Muslim Irrelevant to me Or didn’t drink 40 / 112 I said oh don’t drink - she I used but I don’t anymore Their teas arrived No clunk I said cheers Bipin to Aneet or Khalil laughing and joking for 5/10 minutes and then went back to our rooms”[202]Thus, the alleged behaviour was not the swishing of alcohol glasses (see (194)) or pressure being applied to drink alcohol (see (218)) but 202.1. Miss Kumari but not Mr Rathod pushing their glassed against Ms Khambay’s cup of tea with the risk the alcohol splashed onto her or into her tea and 202.2. the offence Ms Khambay took at being toasted.[203]Not only did Mr Khambay not lead any evidence in detail of what she alleged occurred, but what she has said has substantially changed over time. So too has the focus and the number of perpetrators (which increased and then decreased). The date and which day of the conference is unclear, and Ms Khambay does not address how the individuals were expected to have known she was Muslim and that she took issue with what was going on, on no point did she say that. Nor did she say if she had checked Miss Kumari and Mr Rathod were drinking alcohol and thus there was a risk that the alcohol would contaminate her or her tea. The allegation as put does not indicate the basis for the assertion that pressure was applied and that aspect seems to have fallen away.[204]Ms Khambay’s account of this complaint has been inconsistent throughout and again we place no weight on it. In its final form it remains at odds with the account of Mr Aslam as to Mr Rathod being involved and pressure applied. Again, for the same reasons as we give starting at (110) had this event happened as alleged it was incumbent on both Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam to have reported it and to have followed it up if not actioned. The fact they did not do so points to this event not occurring as is alleged.[205]We find that what occurred was a single innocuous offer of a drink by a work colleague to another in order to be polite and inclusive as she was buying a drink for another colleague. We find that was the reason it was made and in no sense was this related to any of the protected characteristic. Nor viewed objectively did it approach the threshold required by the proscribed circumstances in s.26(1)(b) EqA.[206]It is easy to see how if Miss Kumari had bought a drink for Mr Rathod but not offered one to Ms Khambay that could have formed the basis of her feeling excluded as that forms the basis of several other complaints before us.[207]When the offer was declined, we find it was not repeated and no pressure was applied. The allegation at its highest did not refer to buying an alcoholic drink but any drink. That is reinforced by it being accepted some colleagues were not drinking alcohol and Ms Khambay has not addressed how Mis Kumari was 41 / 112 to have known when she made the offer, she was Muslim and did not drink alcohol.[208]This was a further example where having realised the complaint was unlikely to succeed due to lack of detail rather than concede Ms Khambay sought to embellish far beyond what was originally alleged to clinking glasses and the possibility of the alcohol splashing her. We find that does her no credit. THE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE SPREADING OF RUMOURS[209]Three complaints concern the spreading of rumours about Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam. The complaints of direct discrimination religion/belief) [2.2.11] and sex [3.2.9] relate to the period July 2022 to August 2023, the remaining complaints were undated.[210]As we state at (193) the background to that is that Ms Khambay told us that following a meeting she had with Mr Khan in May 2023 she was told by Mr Jagat that these rumours emanated out of the Winchester Conference in July 2022. In her grievance [507], she said this:- “3b. Himanshu Jagat had been on work experience with us from the University of Warwickshire, placed within our Digital Clinical Informatics team, prior to being appointed as a Data Science Manager for the Information and Performance team. Himanshu turned to me and asked me if I really wanted to know and proceeded to tell me that since he’d joined on work experience there had been nothing but talk within that team of Khalil Aslam and I having an affair. Himanshu spoke of the conversations he had heard and how I had been mocked detailing all the colleagues who were in present and all those who had contributed to these conversations including Sid Singh. I felt sickened and this was made worse when Himanshu said there was no professionalism when it cams to other students who were on work experience being exposed to these allegations, claims and jokes. I felt instantly defiled, in a humiliating situation I find myself in at the hands of fellow colleagues, who knew better of me and for what justification? A form of entertainment at my expense, these are not just mere allegations these are receivable actions that have been taken against me. 3c. Khalil Aslam was in the room at the time of the conversation and was utterly shocked, I felt embarrassed at being subjected to these rumours and shame even though the allegations made were false. I didn’t know where to put my face, Khalil Aslam has a wife and children and I have a family too. I felt stressed, anxious, and utterly devastated that Sid Singh had known about this and had been involved and done nothing to put a stop to all this, I immediately reached out to Michael Parr. 42 / 112 3d. I felt utterly violated, disturbed, disrespected, insulted, offended, abused, outraged, and disgusted. All these months of the word ‘perception’ that was ingrained in me from Senior Managers now came on me in full force- this is what they were all insinuating but could never fully confide. Himanshu went into great detail and confirmed the basis of this stemmed from a Healthcare IT Expert Hub Conference, which took place in Winchester, on the 12th and 13th of July 2022.” (1) Meena Kumari spread rumours suggesting that the Claimant was having an affair with Mr Aslam. Direct Discrimination religion/belief) [2.2.11][211]This was originally also argued as race discrimination and also against Mr Bipinkumar Rathod. Ms Khambay orally withdrew both complaints. That leaves a direct discrimination complaint on grounds of religion or belief as remaining.[212]That aside neither Mr Rathod nor Miss Kumari were specifically named in the particulars of claim:- “19. In addition, Sid Singh's team spread rumours suggesting that the Claimant was having an affair with Mr Aslam. That is, it is understood, what led to her being told that she needed to review how she was perceived, as mentioned above. The Claimant was, understandably, upset about such rumours. Messrs Khan, Parr and Singh were fully aware of these unfounded rumours being spread but failed to tackle them.”[213]As no additional detail is given in relation to this complaint over and the following complaint in the list of issues, we address them together. (2) The Respondent spread rumours suggesting that the Claimant was having an affair with Mr Aslam Harassment (Sex) [5.1.8] & Sexual Harassment [6.2.5][214]This too was originally also argued as race discrimination, but that complaint was withdrawn.[215]Despite that there is no record we were taken to that shows that Ms Khambay raised this issue at the time she allegedly heard about it and instead the first time this was raised was almost 6 months later in her October 2023 grievance where at paragraph 8a [511] Ms Khambay alleged: “●Bipinkumar Rathod [Chief Nursing Information Officer] has regularly spread rumours about alleged affairs ●Meena Kumari [Senior Digital Health Nurse] has spread rumours about alleged affairs and has regularly been involved in degraded conversations about me with all members of the 43 / 112 Digital team which Sid Singh was fully aware of and admitted he was fully aware of.”[216]When one compares the claim form to her grievance the alleged perpetrators had expanded to the entirety of Mr Singh’s team. Despite that in her witness statement Ms Khambay did not name those involved and again gave little detail :- “2d. Harassment (s.26 EqA) … ● [07/08] 2023 - Gossip/rumours of affair with Aslam; Huller “wedding” remark. … 24. Within the Trust, my reputation was undermined without any disclosed allegations. In particular:a. rumours of misconduct were circulated;b. my professional integrity was called into question; andc. my standing among colleagues was diminishedd. These actions caused serious reputational harm and amounted to a breach of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence. … 33. False rumours of an alleged affair with Aslam caused significant professional and personal detriment… [Ms Khambay then went on to list several detriments and reference the alleged remark by Mr huller regarding the wedding]”[217]The wedding remark forms a separate allegation that we address starting at (433).[218]Ms Khambay gave no details of the dates she personally heard the rumours other than second hand from Mr Jagat, who he had heard them/who was spreading them.[219]In addition to pointing out that Ms Khambay has chosen not to call Mr Jagat to give evidence on this Mr Heard argues that “The absence of naming the alleged perpetrators in C’s witness statement is characteristic of a complaint based on speculation; nor is there any evidence of anyone having spread those rumours. Further, the allegation is that the rumours were about an affair yet, as C accepted in crossexamination, anyone involved in those rumours would have had to have known that C and/or KA were in pre-existing relationships, and there is no evidence of this.” 44 / 112[220]We agree and that extract emphasises a repeated theme Mr Heard made during cross examination of Ms Khambay; she was speculating on events and had given no factual basis for the assertions she made.[221]Three times in his witness statement Mr Aslam referred to rumours yet gave no details of the dates he heard them, what the rumours were about, who was spreading them and who he heard them from. Absent that information the only person who Ms Khambay can point to as making or spreading rumours was Mr Jagat on 3 May.[222]Mr Khan said this:- “18.2 … For context, one of the concerns that had been raised by the team was that the Claimant and Mr Aslam were acting as though they were in a relationship, that they were always together, that there was inefficiency as they were doubling everything up at work, that they were attending the same meetings when they didn’t both need to be there, that that they would be in the office together with the door shut and that they were carrying out team appraisals together which made staff feel intimidated. I was concerned about the impact that this was having on the team and staff wellbeing. Staff were raising that they felt intimidated by the fact that the Claimant and Mr Aslam were always together and if they had a meeting with, for example, the Claimant, Mr Aslam would also be there. The feedback from the department was that this was creating tension and impacting on the team. The Claimant and Mr Aslam were both senior leaders in the department, and therefore should role model Trust behaviours and amend their behaviours in line with the feedback. It was in this context that I discussed with the Claimant the perception she and Mr Aslam were giving to the team, and how it was impacting on the department. In respect of car sharing, I could see the impact the behaviours were having on the team as several people had raised concerns about them car sharing and appearing constantly together, and the perception this gave, and so I was providing suggestions on how to address it. I did not tell the Claimant to stop car sharing with Mr Aslam. I did ask why they needed to car share and if it could be done in a different way or less frequently, given that one of the concerns raised in the letter was that they were both acting in tandem. I am shocked that my supportive suggestions have been translated into the allegations that have been made. … 26. The Claimant alleges that Sid Singh’s team spread rumours suggesting that she was having an affair with Mr Aslam and that I, along with Michael and Sid, were fully aware of these rumours but failed to tackle them. I was aware that there were rumours that the Claimant and Mr Aslam were in a 45 / 112 relationship because staff members had raised this with me in the context of the impact it was having on the team and whether there was a conflict of interest. This wasn’t gossip or mischief making. For example, when Louise Stanley was recruited, the Claimant continued to share an office with Mr Aslam, despite being at the same grade as Ms Stanley. Staff would ask why the Claimant and Ms Stanley did not share an office. However, I didn’t hear the rumours directly myself. At no point did either the Claimant or Mr Aslam formally approach me about any rumours or ask me to address them. Without specific details (i.e. who said what on what date) there was little I could do. The Claimant and Mr Aslam informally mentioned the rumours during a conversation one evening in the corridor outside the Information Department. The Claimant and Mr Aslam mentioned to me and Michael, comments that had been made by some members of the Clinical Informatics Team (Sid Singh’s team) about their relationship and behaviour. Michael said he had spoken to Mr Sid Singh as the manager of the team and that it had been dealt with. On that basis I considered the matter closed and that there was no need for me to do anything. The Claimant and Mr Aslam did not ask me to do anything about it at that point or subsequently.”[223]Orally he made clear he was not aware of rumours, but that staff were raising issues regarding the closeness of their managers relationship which was a governance issue.[224]Mr Parr said something similar to what Mr Khan stated in his witness statement:- “13.4. … Concerns had been raised by colleagues in the Information Department about the Claimant and Mr Aslam doubling up in meetings, that they were always together, that they had an inappropriate closeness, that they were working together in the same house and would be together on a Teams call in the same house, locking the office door whilst they were working onsite and they became alienated from the team. In addition, the Claimant and Mr Aslam attended a conference which was due to be led by Sid Singh. Mr Singh was unwell and unable to attend, however the Claimant and Mr Aslam continued to attend together, and it was unclear why they would go without Mr Singh when he was no longer leading the conference. Around this time, the Claimant changed her surname to that of Mr Aslam’s. As a result, people in the team were gossiping about the status of their relationship and it became a concern. Colleagues were raising that they felt that they were being victimised because the Claimant and Mr Aslam would both be in attendance at meetings when it only required one of them to be there. At no point did the Claimant 46 / 112 or Mr Aslam declare a personal relationship to me or the Trust. Concerns had been raised to me that they may be having an undeclared personal relationship, which was not appropriate as they were both senior managers in the same team. However, we were concerned about the optics of the relationship and how it was impacting on the team. I met with the Claimant and Sid about the rumors [sic.] that were alleged to be spread by Sid’s team. He agreed to go back to his team and address.”[225]Mr Dicken’s report (see (51)) confirms there was disquiet but does not reference anything similar an “inappropriate closeness” between Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay being either present or the cause of the concerns.[226]We find GEH was concerned about the optics of Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam travelling into work together, working in same office and conducting meetings together when ordinarily only one would have attended, when both were in highly paid independent roles of the other. As to that final point two senior manager conducting appraisal or similar meetings could also make staff feel intimidated.[227]Mr Khan felt that there was a governance issue and raised the concerns he mentions at [HK/18.2 & 26] with Ms Khambay regarding the perception of staff that her relationship with Mr Aslam was seen as too close and the other concerns raised about them. That is supported by her complaints about their meetings on 3 May and 17 August 2023 (see our findings starting at (332) and starting at (460)). Given those concerns it was only right Mr Khan raise them with Ms Khambay and indeed he was bound to do so. He did just that. We reject Ms Khambay’s complaints in relation to those matters for the reasons we give in those sections.[228]Had this event happened as alleged or Ms Khambay felt the way she and Mr Aslam claim for the reasons we give starting at (110) it was incumbent on both Mr Khambay and Mr Aslam to have reported it and to have followed it up if not actioned. That they did not, suggests that those events did not and she did not perceive them in the way she now claims. Given we attach no weight to her account the harassment complaints also fail.[229]Nor were any facts were advanced that led us to draw inferences that the rumours were related to religion and belief. We find they were raised for the reason we give at (227) and religion/belief played no part in that. (3) Messrs Khan, Parr and Singh were aware of these unfounded rumours being spread but failed to tackle them. Direct Discrimination (religion/belief) [2.2.12], (sex) & [3.2.9] & Harassment (Sex) – 5.1.9[230]Again, the basis for this complaint in the particulars of claim can be found at 230.1. paragraph [19] (see (211)), (although as Mr Heard remind us this was not a specific head of claim) and 47 / 112 230.2. “25 (iii) Messrs Khan and Parr failed to support or put appropriate measures in place to address these matters”[231]The “matters” as emphasised by us in 25 (iii) above appear to be the preceding paragraphs:- “25(i) following the departure of Mr Joseph Buckler, the Claimant was ignored, sidestepped and talked about; 25(ii) following the departure of Mr Joseph Buckler some of her colleagues looked for reasons to criticise her”[232]Thus, as Mr Heard argues, the complaints were not referencing the spreading of rumours which are referenced in paragraph 25 at (viii) and indirectly at (ix) and (x) and nor did the complaint as originally raised in the claim form reference Mr Singh as failed to tackle the rumours.[233]Paragraph 25 of the claim form is pleaded as direct sex, harassment related to sex and sexual harassment. The same factual allegations at 25 (i) to (iii) were also pleaded as race and religious belief heads of claim at 26 (i) to (iii). (paragraph 25 (viii) maps to 26(viii), 25 (ix) to 26 (ix) and 25 (x) to 26 (vii)).[234]Thus, this complaint within the list of issues was also identified as race discrimination but that complaint was withdrawn.[235]Whilst she alleges in her witness statement at (11c) that she reported offensive rumours at a meeting in May/June 2023 she gave no additional detail of what was said. She confirmed orally before us that this was the meeting with Mr Khan on 3 May 2023 (see our findings starting at (332)).[236]In her grievance Ms Khambay said this [506]: “1c. I have been the victim of direct and indirect sexism discrimination which exists within our organisation and demands urgent attention and action to allow everyone to work in a safe environment. Haq Khan, Michael Parr and Sid Singh have been fully aware of these unacceptable behaviours I have had to deal with but seemed reluctant to tackle this head-on…”[237]In addition to the comments we reference at (216) above in her witness statement Ms Khambay said this of this complaint:- “2e. Victimisation (s.27 EqA) … ● 02/05/2023 - Gossip and rumours left unchallenged … 16. Aslam [Aslam v GEH] and I were subject to discriminatory treatment on the grounds of our ethnicity, religion, and professional association. Senior management permitted false narratives and rumours about us to circulate without intervention. This failure to act fostered division in the 48 / 112 workplace, undermined our professional standing, and caused humiliation.”[238]Mr Singh told us:- “9. … I do recall a meeting with Michael Parr and the Claimant in which the Claimant was upset about something related to the clinical informatics team talk. In the next team huddle I reminded my team not to gossip and to work professionally. I do not recall anything further being raised about the matter.”`[239]Mr Singh told us in cross examination he was not aware of rumours circulating. When asked what he was referring to in paragraph 9 he referred to “the professional relationship” between Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay.[240]Questions were put to some his team and colleagues about the discussion Mr Singh, Mr Parr and Mr Khan reference. 240.1. Miss Kumari told us there was no specific discussion with Mr Singh regarding rumours nor could she recall them being mentioned at the team huddles (that apparently took place three times a week). She explained that she could have been off on the day concerned. She did however tell us that there was a specific agenda item for one of the huddles relating to a reminder to be professional. 240.2. Mr Shrivastava told us there was no such discussion in front of him, he accepted there were meetings on Tuesday morning, but he hardly attended them. He added (the judge’s note) “we don’t concentrate on rumours as we try to be professional”. 240.3. Mr Huller had no recollection of such a discussion but reminded us that he only worked one day a week in that team.[241]We considered if their accounts cast doubt on the weight to what Messrs Khan, Parr and Singh said regarding the issue. We find what was done was that there was a general reminder not to gossip and given the absence of dates being provided in our view.it is unsurprising it was not recalled by the team.[242]As the complaint on its face sets out (and before we address the link to discrimination/harassment) Ms Khambay needs to show:- 242.1. unfounded rumours were being spread. 242.2. Messrs Khan, Parr and Singh were aware of them and 242.3. failed to tackle them.[243]We address the change in Ms Khambay’s position regarding Mr Singh at (232) above. As to the first and second element given their accounts we find Messrs Parr, Khan and also Mr Singh knew rumours were circulating and they were aware of them.[244]As to the third element the only evidence that Ms Khambay brings forward that any of Messrs Khan, Parr and Singh were aware of the rumours was in relation to the meeting on 3 May 2023 (see (235)). That solely related to Mr Khan. That said, given all three reference the concerns that were being raised we find it is 49 / 112 likely those “concerns” dated back to the FTSU complaints in the middle of 2022 (and the listening exercise in early 2023). The earlier date is consistent with what Mr Jagat appeared to suggest to Ms Khambay that the rumours dated back to mid 2022 (although we make no finding that the Winchester conference was the catalyst for them).[245]We find that GEH sought to address the issue in two ways. 245.1. For the reasons we give above GEH was concerned about the optics of the situation and raised this with Ms Khambay. 245.2. It gave general reminders to staff about not gossiping and being professional.[246]As to the former we found at (227) that GEH was entitled and indeed obliged to raise this with her.[247]Given the absence of detail Ms Khambay gave about who was spreading the rumours and when, it is difficult to see what GEH could do over and above the general reminders we find it gave to staff about not gossiping and being professional. That is reinforced by Ms Khambay failing to suggest what else would have been done. Without knowing where the rumour came from, for GEH to embark on what would have potentially needed to be a wide-ranging investigation, would have potentially made the issue even bigger than it was.[248]That being so, it is difficult to see how GEH could or would have done anything differently had the rumour been spread about others who were not Muslim or of a different sex.[249]Ms Khambay has not advanced any evidence from which inferences could be drawn that the failure to act was in any sense influenced by Religion/Belief that complaint must therefore fail.[250]Given Mr Aslam was in the same position, the failure to act that the claim relates to equally applies to him and so any sex discrimination complaint must also fail.[251]If Ms Khambay had felt this was discrimination/harassment again the points we make at (110) apply and it was incumbent on both Mr Khambay and Mr Aslam to have reported it and to have followed it up if not actioned. That they did not.[252]Indeed, when it was raised with Ms Khambay that she was treated no differently to Mr Aslam she accepted that. When she was asked how the sex discrimination element of the complaint could therefore succeed, she sought to change her account to argue that the way this was said and what was said was completely different and this was due not to her race or religion but her sex. She had led no evidence to support that argument either in her witness statement or in her grievance [481-482]. Having realised her difficulty succeeding in relation to that element of her account her elaboration does her no credit and in our view was a further example of her seeking to argue a wholly new basis for the complaint as she went along. It fundamentally damages her credibility as a witness and again is a further reason we give no weight to her account. 50 / 112 THE COMPLAINTS FOLLOWING MR BUCKLER’S DEPARTURE[253]Allegations2.2.1(a) to (e) and2.2.2 (a) &(b) all are alleged to have followed in consequence of the departure of Joseph Buckler.[254]It was agreed that Joseph Buckler (the son of Mrs Buckler) left GEH’s employment in or around July 2022. We were told and accept (as this was not challenged) that he was never line managed by Mrs Buckler. On 25 August 2022 Maxine Buckler was criticising the Claimant to other junior members of the team regarding her discontent that the Claimant had rescheduled her appraisal. Direct Discrimination (race) [2.2.2 (a)] & (sex) [3.2.3(a)][255]This complaint was not mentioned in Ms Khambay’s grievance, her grievance investigation meetings or in the particulars of claim. The closest we get is the allegation is the allegation Ms Khambay “felt ignored, sidestepped, and talked about” (see (137)). The first time that we can trace when this issue was raised was when the list of issues was agreed at the case management hearing on 10 October 2024.[256]In her witness statement Ms Khambay said this:- “2c … ●25/08/2023 – Buckler criticised me in front of junior colleagues regarding discontent of her appraisal being rearranged.”[257]Whilst both Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay told us they witnessed this Mr Aslam makes no reference to this in his witness statement.[258]The background to this is as follows.[259]Just after 2:15pm on 25 August 2022 Mrs Buckler emailed her appraisal document to Ms Khambay copying in Mr Aslam [632] saying this:- “Apologies that I’ve only just got round to completing and sending this through to you, but it’s been manic since I returned from my annual leave on Monday. I look forward to a meeting next week. Have a good Bank Holiday weekend.”[260]Ms Khambay replied approximately 40 minutes later [632] again copying in Mr Aslam attaching:- “… a workplan document that I will require you to complete in advance of your review meeting. This will ensure you’re able to document some of the great work that you and the team of accomplished over the 12 months, to include in the actions of your personal development and any coaching. 51 / 112 In view of this request, I will move you appraisal to Monday 20th September.”[261]For the reasons we give below (273) we find the workplan document did not form part of the standard appraisal documents issued by GEH. Given that, the way the email reads and that Ms Khambay refers to this as a request, we find that the workplan document was not something she had sent to Mrs Buckler or asked her to provide in advance of 25 August.[262]Mrs Buckler replied another 40 minutes later [631] thanking her for her response, confirming she would work on the document next week and get it back to her and asking her to confirm that the “… move of my appraisal will not stop my increment 1st September.”[263]Ms Khambay did not reply. Instead after the Bank Holiday weekend Mrs Buckler received two emails from Mr Aslam. The first was sent just after noon on 30 August [631]:- “It was very disappointing last week to hear you sharing you dissatisfaction about your appraisal, out aloud in the office on Thursday 25/08. Due to it being a long bank holiday weekend, I did not want to pick this up with you as I wanted you to have a good weekend break. I was on a call with Aneet whilst she was checking something with Nicola on Teams and heard your dissatisfaction with your appraisal meeting being rescheduled. May I remind you that you are a senior member of the team, and your professionalism and conduct is of the utmost importance, vocalising this in an open forum with junior members of team, not only does this discredits you but our organisation, As a senior manager I must ask you to refrain from such actions, and to contact either myself or Aneet should you have any issues. I am hoping this is the last time it takes place.”[264]Neither Mr Aslam nor Ms Khambay told us what had been said between them in advance of that email Whilst Mr Aslam had been copied in on the earlier email chain it is clear, in our view, that he had formed a view on matters without first hearing from Mrs Buckler. That is not good management practice. Despite being a long-standing senior manager Mr Aslam did not acknowledge that before us and appeared to believe that was a reasonable way to address matters. It was not.[265]Mr Aslam’s second email was sent around 5 minutes later [631] :- “An appraisal is a two-way process and it requires action from both sides. If the documentation is not completed to a satisfactory level and the appraisal will not go ahead. 52 / 112 The appraisal are scheduled in around leave {sic.] and other work-related commitments. It would be useful to invest the time into the appraisal when there scheduled so we do not end in a prissy situation where we have to reschedule.[266]Not only did that response fail to address the question posed by Mrs Buckler, in our judgment it adopted a surprising tone given we find the request for Mrs Buckler to complete the workplan was new and thus the reason her appraisal had been rescheduled was entirely down to Ms Khambay. Further given Mr Aslam did what essentially equated to a reprimand, nor had he sought to canvass Mrs Buckler’s account of events before doing so. We find it was an entirely unreasonable response in the circumstances. Irrespective of whether we accept her account or not the need for that to have been done is demonstrated by what Mrs Buckler told us. This merits us relaying it in full despite its length:- “6.1.1. I had an appraisal scheduled with the Claimant for 30 August 2022 but I had also been asked to deliver training to another Trust (University Hospitals North Midlands) by NHS England. The Claimant scheduled my appraisal the same day as the training despite having access to my work calendar. The training had been in my calendar for several weeks before the appraisal was arranged by the Claimant. I did not feel I could cancel the appraisal meeting with the Claimant due to the negative response I would likely receive from her (based on my experience in the past) and so I cancelled the training session with University Hospitals North Midlands Trust. On, or around, 25 August, the Claimant cancelled my appraisal without discussing it with me. I was in the office at the time I and so I said to the two colleagues sat next to me (including Nicola Winfield, Khalil Aslam’s PA) “I can’t believe they [the Claimant and Khalil Aslam] have cancelled my appraisal when I’d cancelled the training” or something along those lines. After the bank holiday, I received an email from Khalil Aslam criticising me. He said he had been on a Teams call with the Claimant and Nicola Winfield (who was sat in the office) and so heard “my dissatisfaction” with my appraisal meeting being rescheduled. Nicola told those of us who were in the room that she was asked by the Claimant to put her Teams on in the background whilst she was in the office so that the Claimant could listen in to office conversations while at home. This led to a sense of fear in the office. Mr Aslam stated “As a senior manager I must ask you to refrain from such actions, and to contact myself or Aneet should you have any issues. I am hoping this is the last time it takes place.” [p749]. Mr Aslam intimated in his email that he was present during the teams the meeting where my conversation was overheard. However Nicola had already advised me that only the Claimant was present and that the Claimant was at home at the time. Mr 53 / 112 Aslam sent a further email around five minutes later, suggesting that I had not invested the time into the appraisal, which was incorrect as I had completed all of the paperwork. Mr Aslam referred to an additional document which was not part of the standard appraisal pack and I didn’t have a copy. I had never previously been required to complete this document in the over 20 years I had been at the Trust. The document titled “Work Plan” was emailed to me by the Claimant on 25 August 2022. In the same email, the Claimant also rescheduled my appraisal to 20 September 2022. 6.1.2. My appraisal did eventually take place on 26 September 2022 at 15:30. I thought that the appraisal would be in person, given that we were all on site that day, but when I knocked on the door of the office where the Claimant and Mr Aslam were, they said to me that it would be on Teams. They then remained in the room, and I had to go and find a private room. The room I located was the one next door to the Claimant and Mr Aslam. I considered that they did this to exert their power and control over me. I would describe the appraisal as the worst hour and a half to two hours of my life. It was horrid and I felt bullied and intimidated [p250-251]. During the appraisal, I was repeatedly interrupted and bombarded with questions by both the Claimant and Mr Aslam. Whenever I attempted to answer a question, the other would interrupt me with a new question. I was consistently told that the data quality team were not doing enough and that we needed to “work smarter, not harder”. Issues with the data quality team had never previously been raised. I requested clarification on what this meant during the appraisal meeting but the Claimant and Mr Aslam were unable to provide any details. Mr Aslam raised again the comment I had made about my appraisal being cancelled. Mr Aslam told me that I shouldn’t have been giving training to another Trust or sharing ‘best practice’ with other Trusts, and that I should be concentrating on my own work. This was despite NHS England [NHSE] requesting that I deliver training to another Trust due to the success the Trust had had in improving the LUNA data. The entire situation left me distressed and tearful by the end. I never received the appraisal paperwork which should have been returned to me, and never saw any feedback from management. My appraisal date was later entered into my staff record incorrectly, showing as a date when I was off sick recovering from surgery. 6.1.3. As a result of my appraisal being cancelled and rescheduled, I did not receive a pay increment that year. I received no pay increment until the following September, because the Trust’s policy is that an appraisal must be completed at your incremental date prior to allowing for the 54 / 112 pay increment to be awarded. When I received my pay increment the following year, it was not backdated.”[267]Mrs Betteridge said this:- “9c. … I was present in the office when this happened, I was sat at the desk next to Maxine. Nicola Winfield, the Claimant’s PA was on a Teams call with the Claimant. I recall that Maxine had an email through to say her appraisal had been cancelled, and she said something along the lines of that she couldn’t believe they’ve cancelled her appraisal as she hadn’t completed a workplan. Imran Khalifa sat to the left of Maxine, he also commented that his appraisal had been cancelled for the same reason. Nicola nervously indicated to us all to be quiet. When she came off the call Nicola said that the Claimant had asked her to be quiet so that the Claimant could hear what was being said in the office. Maxine was not criticising the Claimant, she was just indicating frustration at the appraisal being cancelled because she hadn’t completed some of the paperwork, which was not actually Trust documentation. …”[268]In cross examination Mrs Buckler was asked why she expressed discontent in front of junior members of her team. She did not dispute that she had and instead told us this was not meant to be derogatory but she had spent weeks arranging the training NHSE had asked her to deliver, she found it really difficult, it had been in her diary for 6 or 8 weeks and then her appraisal was organised without any reference to her. She told us that given the way she felt about Ms Khambay at time she didn’t feel she could speak to her about it, so she cancelled the training. She told all she said was “I can’t believe they have cancelled my appraisal” because she had spent such a long time sorting out the training and it was not aimed at anyone.[269]Mrs Buckler was challenged why she had not raised the issue with anyone. She told us she was encountering health problems at the time that she had not shared them with anyone. Her account of those health issues was further questioned. We do not propose to expand on what those health issues were, but Ms Khambay could have easily asked in advance of the hearing for sight of medical evidence to support that claim if she intended to challenge it, as it appeared she had done in relation to other matters. She did not.[270]Mrs Buckler’s health issues aside, if it is true that she felt she could not raise those issues, is a damning indictment of their working relationship. It is consistent with the other feedback GEH was receiving about the team at the time.[271]Ms Khambay (and Mr Aslam) accepted that Mr Buckler’s appraisal eventually took place by Teams on account of there being very few free rooms available. Ms Khambay told us that was arranged by Teams as there was limited office space at GEH. That may have been so, but given Mrs Buckler and her team worked in a shared office that merely passed the burden of arranging a private 55 / 112 room to Mrs Buckler or attend the appraisal in a room she shared with her colleagues meaning it was essentially conducted in public. Ms Khambay appeared to have no appreciation of that issue or give any thought to the alternative of conducting the appraisal in the office she shared with Mr Aslam and asking him to leave. Nor, given both Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay accepted they were in the same room at the time the appraisal was carried out, did Ms Khambay or Mr Aslam appear to appreciate how that was consistent with the appraisal being conducted in way that Mrs Buckler could have an open conversation. Both also failed to appreciate that (even if the concerns about their relationship not been present) that Mr Aslam’s presence might dissuade a member of staff from raising issue particularly if they involved Mr Aslam and/or the presence of both managers might be seen as intimidatory.[272]Mr Heard asserts that the contemporaneous emails about the rescheduling of Mrs Buckler’s appraisal :- 272.1. demonstrate unreasonable behaviour by Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay as complained of by Mrs Buckler, and 272.2. give an insight to Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam’s conduct in the workplace generally.[273]He firstly refers in support to Ms Khambay requiring Mrs Buckler to complete a work plan document that did not form part of GEH’s standard appraisal forms and for which she was unable to show formed part of those standard forms or provide any explanation for seeking. We agree. As we state at (262) Ms Khambay’s email of 25 August 2022 reads as a request she had not previously made to Mrs Buckler to complete a document she had not sent her or asked her to provide in advance of that email. Mrs Buckler’s comment in her witness statement that she had not seen that document in all the years she had worked at GEH reinforces that view.[274]Again, there appears to be no evidence that Ms Khambay requested the same workplan from others.[275]Secondly, Mr Heard argued an appraisal is an important event for all employees and employers and thirdly, in Mrs Bucker’s case, her annual pay increment was dependent she told us on the appraisal having been completed by the end of August. As a result of it not taking place prior to that date she told us she did not receive her pay increment. We agree in our experience as an industrial jury once diarised an appraisal should not be cancelled. In this case not only did Ms Khambay arrange the appraisal without reference to Mrs Buckler or her diary but she did not dispute she also cancelled it unilaterally, and without any discussion. Even if there was an issue with the required documentation she could and should have spoke to Mrs Buckler. On her own account she made no attempt to. If she had required the workplan to be used, she should have sent that to Mrs Bucker in advance or identify where it was required in GEH’s policies. She did not.[276]We accept Mrs Buckler lost out on her annual increment as a result. Ms Khambay has not shown otherwise despite that being in issue on the face of Mrs Buckler’s witness statement. Ms Khambay’s asserted that she was not 56 / 112 aware that the appraisal not being done by the deadline meant Mrs Buckler would forgo her increment that year. Given we find she was not using standard GEH documentation, her cancellation and her lack of knowledge of that demonstrates another complaint made by staff against her; that she did not follow GEH’s procedures. That may be because, as she admitted before us, she did not read them at the outset of her employment only when she had occasion to use them. The actuality appears to be that she did not familiarise herself with them properly at all. Either way that is poor management practice.[277]Mr Heard’s fourth point is that poor management practice is also shown by Ms Khambay (and Mr Aslam) covertly listening in to Mrs Buckley’s office via Ms Winfield’s computer.[278]Mr Aslam accepts he was not physically present in the room. We checked and were told Ms Winfield’s computer faced against wall and were not told that there was a second webcam in addition to that facing her so she could be seen on the Teams call. Despite having made no reference to the direction the camera was facing in his witness statement Mr Aslam maintained he knew who was in the room. Nor did he suggest that he knew who was there because he heard them speaking via the Teams call. He adamantly persisted in that view even when it was pointed out to him that, given he was not in the room at the time, and the only camera was pointing toward Ms Winfield that he could not say for definite who was there. He appeared to suggest that he knew who was present in the room by virtue of him knowing who was in the office that day. He failed to recognise that did not assist him being able to say at a given point if individuals had left or entered the room and thus who was present.[279]Not only does Mrs Betteridge support the view that for whatever reason Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam could hear what was happening in the room Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay’s accounts are predicated on that.[280]Fifthly, we accept Mr Heard’s suggestion that not only was Ms Khambay not interested in speaking to Mrs Buckler after hearing the comment but nor was Mr Aslam. Neither made any attempt to find out Mrs Buckler’s version of events before forming a view.[281]Whilst Mr Heard’s sixth, point, that Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam failed to answer Mrs Buckler’s question about her pay increment [631] could support our comments above about her not understanding the process, given the emphasis she placed on her pay we find that along with Mr Heard’s third point instead suggests she did not care.[282]Seventhly Mr Heard argues Mr Aslam’s emails to Mrs Buckler on 30 August 2025 at 12:05 [749] and 12:11 [631], with Ms Khambay copied in, demonstrate a combative approach which suggests that Mrs Buckler was being punished. Again, we agree that is supported by not just the points concerning pay but that is also consistent with Mrs Buckler’s account of a deterioration in their relationship following the listening exercise, her being singled out at the lunch time session and contrary to what usually occurred her consistently been requested to be a minute taker (see (149), the section starting at (377) and paragraph (359)). 57 / 112[283]Finally, Mr Heard invited us to accept Mrs Buckler’s description of her appraisal. Given the limited weight we attach to Ms Khambay’s evidence and GEH being unable to locate any appraisal document for Mrs Buckler, we do so.[284]Ms Abbas told us in response to questions in the context of the alleged shift in behaviour towards Ms Khambay in the light of Mr Buckler’s departure that around July 2022 in the downstairs toilets in the maternity building Ms Khambay had confided in her that she felt she was being undermined. Miss Abbas told orally us she worked on a separate team to Ms Khambay at the time and she was not line managed by her. Whilst not precisely mirroring the complaint Ms Khambay makes about Mrs Buckler - Mrs Buckler was alleged to have criticised Ms Khambay to other junior members of the team regarding her discontent - and we do not know precisely what Ms Khambay is alleged to have said and about whom - that demonstrates an element of hypocrisy on Ms Khambay’s part in that she was not only complaining about her treatment by other members of staff to a junior colleague but she failed to recognise that is how rumours start.[285]We find those matters embody the poor management style of Ms Khambay as supported by the albeit generalised complaints the FTSU complaints included, the listening exercise and Mr Dickens’ report.[286]Whilst in our view Mr Aslam’s first email of 30 August [631] (see (263)) was an admonishment of Mrs Buckler, that does not detract from the need, if Ms Khambay or he had believed Ms Khambay was being undermined (for whatever reason) to have reported the matter and followed it up.[287]Mr Aslam’s failure to relay the event in his witness statement casts doubt on the weight we should give to Ms Khambay’s portrayal. Had he concurred with her portrayal he would have mentioned it his emails of 30 August and followed it up. He did not. Likewise had Ms Khambay perceived Mrs Buckler’s reaction as she now alleges, we find she would have raised that with Mrs Buckler at the time or in the aftermath. She did not.[288]This is not just an instance where the points we set out at (110) apply; the complete failure of Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay in their respective emails to address the points Ms Khambay now makes in this complaint substantially detract from the way they seek to portray this event[289]We find it is understandable in the circumstances that Mrs Buckler responded as she did. We find she was not being treated fairly and that was not the only instance she gave of this (see (359) and the topic starting at (377)). We find she would have responded to her treatment in the same way whether her manager had been male female or whatever their religion. Mrs Buckler’s response was in no sense connected to religion or sex but to her frustration at the way she was being treated. Those complaints also fail for those reasons. 58 / 112 THE COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE DECEMBER 2022 VISIT TO WINCHESTER 11 December 2022 Michael Parr informed the Claimant that he was getting divorced and asked her when she was going to whisk him off his feet and marry him. Direct Discrimination (sex) [3.2.4], Harassment (sex) [5.1.4] & Sexual Harassment [6.2.1][290]This allegation is set out in this way in the particulars of claim:- “7. During a visit to Winchester on 11 December 2022, Michael Parr informed the Claimant that he was getting divorced and asked her when she was going to whisk him off his feet and marry him. This comment was unwelcome.” [our emphasis in that and each of the following][291]In her witness statement Ms Khambay does not mention divorce:- “2d. Harassment (s.26 EqA) ●11/12/2022 - Parr’s inappropriate marriage remarks and repeated late-night calls ... 7. I was subjected to frequent sexist and culturally insensitive a. In late 2022, Parr made inappropriate comments suggesting that I should marry him. [see also (99)][292]In his witness statement Mr Aslam said this:- “3h. I can confirm that during a visit to support Mr Parr in Winchester on 11 December 2022, I heard Parr make a remark to Ms Khambay, suggesting marriage. In my view this was wholly [sic.] inappropriate, humiliating and unfair. I witnessed this as Ms Khambay got up and left the table in utter disgust.”[293]Again, there is no contemporaneous documentary evidence of Ms Khambay having complained about this at the time and the first reference we have to the alleged incident is in her grievance (10 months later) [511] where she said this: “8a – Highly manipulative, contrived, controlled, misogynistic, and intimidating language was directed at me by colleagues because of my gender. I cannot begin to express everything that has happened but what I will do is to try and explain the situations in which I found myself. Below are some examples of the continued sexist behaviour: … ● MP informed me that he was getting divorced and asked me when I was going to whisk him off his feet and marry him. …” 59 / 112[294]The single incident referred to was thus not dated.[295]The minute of the sixth grievance investigation meeting of 5 June 2025 [723] (2½ years later) records Ms Khambay as saying this:- “Had been standing outside the lift going to lunch, Manorj [Srivastava] and Michael Parr made an inappropriate comment asking her ‘when are you going to whisk him off his feet and marry him’. Confirmed some comments she became accustomed to.”[296]Thus, neither Ms Khambay nor Mr Aslam gave us any context to the complaint.[297]Ms Khambay accepted orally that she should have corrected her account of the “tie incident” when she went through the minutes of the grievance investigation meeting (see our findings starting at (303)).We find Ms Khambay mixed two events; the “tie incident” at GEH and the visit to Winchester in December 2023. Her failure to reflect and correct that damages her reliability as a witness and the weight we give to her evidence.[298]In her oral evidence she expanded on the reason for the visit (we do not propose to address this here) and why she accompanied Mr Aslam (again we do not propose to address that here). She told us that they knew about it because she and Mr Aslam were in a WhatsApp group with Mr Parr and Mr Singh. Again, she elaborated telling us that the five of them went out for a pizza with Mr Singh’s wife who was also there and had paid for the meal. When asked Mr Singh denied that both he and his wife went there. When the day of the week of the visit was alleged to have taken place was raised (a Sunday) Mr Aslam queried that stating it could not have occurred on that day because it took pace on a weekday because he had had to ring the office to say he would not be in.[299]No good explanation was provided why such relevant information was not included in the witness statements of Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam. Again, that undermines the evidence of Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam. The shifting nature of both accounts reinforces that.[300]However, in addition to the lack of a reasonable explanation and inconsistent account, two further matters stretch the plausibility of the allegation beyond breaking point. 300.1. Ms Khambay told us she used the visit to take Mr Parr’s Christmas present to him. If her suggestion that she had been subjected to harassment and discrimination by Mr Parr for reasons of her race, religious/belief and sex since July 2021 (i.e. 18 months) and he had failed to act on her complaints was true it is simply implausible to suggest she would have travelled the 300 miles she claimed (see (94)), to visit Mr Parr, someone she also claimed she was not friends with, would have gone out for a meal with him, albeit with others, and would have taken him a Christmas present. 60 / 112 300.2. Ms Khambay’s allegation that she considered Mr Parr’s behaviour to be direct discrimination, harassment related to sex and sexual harassment appears to take no account of the reason why she gave she went to visit Mr Parr (again we do not propose to relay that here) but which necessitated both her and Mr Aslam making a round trip of 300 miles.[301]Again this is a further instance where both Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam state they were present and for the reasons we set out at (110) it was incumbent on both at the time to have reported it, had it happened as alleged and to have followed it. The fact they did not again adds weight to this event not occurring as is alleged.[302]For those reasons we place no weight on the evidence of Ms Khambay or Mr Aslam in relation to this complaint. We find it did not occur as alleged. THE TIE INCIDENT In January 2023 Manoj Srivastava asked the claimant to tie his tie in front of many other colleagues. Direct Discrimination [3.2.5] & Harassment [5.1.5] (both sex)[303]Again, there is no contemporaneous documentary evidence of Ms Khambay having complained about this at the time. Again, the first reference we have to the alleged incident is in her grievance (10 months later) [511] where she said this: “8a – Highly manipulative, contrived, controlled, misogynistic, and intimidating language was directed at me by colleagues because of my gender. I cannot begin to express everything that has happened but what I will do is to try and explain the situations in which I found myself. Below are some examples of the continued sexist behaviour: … ● Manoj Srivastava embarrassed me in front of other colleagues and he asked me to tie a knot in his tie …”[304]Whilst no date was given in her grievance this was provided in the claim form:- “10. In January 2023, Manoj Srivastava asked the client [sic. - we assume this meant claimant] to tie his tie in front of many other colleagues. The Claimant was asked to do this because she was a woman. If was, furthermore, unwelcome.” [our emphasis in that and each of the following][305]In her witness statement, Ms Khambay alleged: “7. I was subjected to frequent sexist and culturally insensitive 61 / 112 … b. In 2022, Srivastava publicly on the 3rd floor of the maternity building, outside the lifts, asked me to tie a knot in his tie, which was publicly embarrassing and demeaning and directed at me because I am a Muslim woman.”[306]That date is at odds with that in her claim but also with the date Mr Aslam told us:- “3g. During January 2023, I witnessed an incident in which Mr. Manoj Srivastava asked Ms. Khambay to tie his tie in front of multiple colleagues outside the lift which is directly outside my office. This request was made publicly and without justification, and it was clearly unwelcome. This appeared to me to be sexist and demeaning.”[307]In her witness statement Mrs Kumari said nothing about the tie. She told us this was because she was not asked about it by GEH’s solicitors because her name was not in the allegation. That was an oversight on their part because her name was only mentioned in report into Ms Khambay’s grievance [951] and that was after her witness statement prepared. That does not explain why given her witness statement was dated 12 September 2025 it was not updated to reflect that.[308]During her giving oral evidence the judge’s note records that she did not remember the date but told us this was prior to a conference where one of them was presenting and they needed to take head shots against a clear background. To do that she told us that she, Mr Singh and Mr Shrivastava went to the corridor by lifts so she could take head shots. She then told Mr Shrivastava he needed a tie, so took Mr Singh’s tie off him, put it on Mr Shrivastava and then straightened it. At that point she told us Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam came out of the lift and were giggling at them asking “why are you taking mug shots?”. She told us nothing else was said by Ms Khambay. When asked if she had taken offence at what Mr Shrivastava had said or if that was in any sense because she was a woman; she said she had done it because she could tie a tie, he had said he could not and Mr Singh had unravelled the tie so it needed to be tied.[309]In response to further questions she confirmed she did not take it to be sexist to her, or demeaning in any other way and that Mr Shrivastava didn’t ask her to tie the tie. Finally, she explained that when Ms Khambay got out of lift, she had already taken it off Mr Singh and was putting it on Mr Shrivastava and that Ms Khambay walked in halfway through.[310]Mr Singh said nothing about the tie incident in his witness statement. That is unsurprising, Ms Khambay made no mention of him being present until Ms Khambay was asked why she had not said who was there. She responded by stating that Mr Singh and his whole team had been present. That is another example of her elaborating on events. In cross examination Mr Singh was not asked about this. 62 / 112[311]Mr Srivastava said this in his witness statement:- “6) The Claimant also says that in January 2023, I asked her to tie my tie in front of many other colleagues. I did not ask the Claimant to tie my tie. All I recall is that after the Winchester conference the whole informatics team stood in the corridor with Sid Singh ready to have my photograph taken, as we were having head shots taken for the next conference. I wasn’t wearing a tie and needed to look smart, so I asked Sid Singh if I could borrow his tie for the head shot. At this point the Claimant was passing by with others, I cannot accurately recall who, but discussions were held regarding who knew how to tie a tie properly. The conversation was not directed at the Claimant, although she did overhear and made some comment that I no longer recall. Mena Kumari tied my tie, not the Claimant. I did not ask Mena or anyone else to do this, but Mena said thought it needed straightening up. The whole scenario happened very quickly and was a casual exchange. I didn’t have any other specific interactions with the Claimant.”[312]Mr Srivastava in cross examination accepted all he could remember of the incident was Mrs Kumari tying his tie and then straightening. Having been asked about his recall of the event, he explained to us that he was told by colleagues what had happened. Save in one respect we therefore place little weight on his account except where it is supported elsewhere. The caveat to that is that his failure to recall the incident adds weight to it being an innocuous and easily forgettable instance. That is reinforced by there being no evidence that Mr Aslam nor Ms Khambay complained about this at the time. Again, we repeat what we say at (110) as to why it was incumbent on both Mr Khambay and Mr Aslam to do so.[313]In addition to Ms Khambay correcting her account (see (297)) there followed a further example Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam embellishing from what was said in her account what was put to witnesses. During the cross examination of Mr Srivastava and long after the events occurred having told us that Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay walked past overheard the comments about the tie Mr Aslam then suggested that everyone was present [without stating who], that Mr Srivastava made a direct comment to Ms Khambay asking her to tie his tie, whereupon which Ms Khambay said I’ll strangle you with that tie. It was suggested that she was really humiliated.[314]Mr Aslam accepted that was entirely new statement by Ms Khambay.[315]That was however a comment something Mr Aslam (but not Ms Khambay) recalled. The grievance report records [951]:- “Khalil Aslam recalls that there were about 10/12 people going for lunch and Manoj Srivastava, asked Aneet Khambay ‘can you help and do my tie for me’ to which Aneet Khambay responded ‘Yes I can strangle you with that tie’. Khalil Aslam believes Aneet Khambay’s comment left him red faced. Khalil 63 / 112 Aslam felt it was a sexist comment and was inappropriate. (Appendix 22.c)”[316]The “strangle you” comment may have been something that stuck in Mr Aslam’s mind but not Ms Khambay’s. If so her failure to mention it is highly pertinent given she raises this as a harassment related to sex complaint as well as direct sex discrimination. Her failure to do so, in addition to her seeking as the case progressed to allege the reason for the alleged conduct was also her religious belief and her failure to explain why she considered that to be so now, all cast doubt on her perception of the event.[317]Those points aside neither Mr Aslam nor Ms Khambay provided an adequate explanation why neither made any mention of it nor reporting it at the time. Further, any general findings we make about Ms Khambay’s recall or consistency aside, as we say at (297) she confused this with another incident.[318]We do not accept Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam’s account of that event. We find it did not happen as alleged and given our concerns about how she perceived it, it was not something she was offended by at the time but a matter she has sought to use to embellish her case.[319]Those complaints also fail. THE COMPLAINTS IN APRIL AND MAY 2023 On 26 April 2023 the Claimant became aware that she was being recorded by Brett Beetham. Direct Discrimination (race) [2.2.1(b)] & (sex) [3.2.2][320]There is no contemporaneous documentary evidence of this complaint and Ms Khambay accepted this allegation in the way it is stated in the list of issues does not appear in the particulars of claim or her grievance [496] despite her making allegations about Mr Beetham in the grievance:- “12f. Brett Beetham has continuously sought to apply pressure using his Councillor position to gain advantage of certain situations. This included influencing situations such as Trust policy when it came to applying for special types of leave. Brett Beetham was demanding 20 days paid leave to attend Council meetings which he said was mandatory. The policy was checked by Meesha Ranpurai and she confirmed that this is not possible, as there are not such criteria that applies to Brett Beetham in these circumstances. Brett Beetham was adamant that he was going to take the 20 days, escalating to Khalil Aslam, Michael Parr and then Haq Khan. Brett Beetham threatened to take this internal matter into Cabinet within the Council. It was explained to Brett even if we applied Managers discretion the 20 days were a far stretch, this would add more pressure to colleagues within his team and result on impacting the team’s workload to an already over-stretched team. Brett Beetham was being unreasonable with his demands and not 64 / 112 willing to compromise as a result of which, he took this to FTSU, Haq Khan and Michael Parr were fully aware however did not intervene and support.”[321]Her witness statement provides little further:- “2c … 26/04/2023 - Claimant being aware that recording was being taken place by Beetham”[322]Again, the closest that we come to a complaint about this issue in the particulars of claim is the allegation that Ms Khambay “felt ignored, sidestepped, and talked about” (see (136137). However, there is no mention of Mr Beetham in that allegation or any reference to him recording meetings.[323]Repeatedly Mr Aslam put to the respondent’s witnesses that they recalled events but not the detail. We took that to be a point he made about their reliability as a witness. Mr Beetham responded to that question by pointing out that he had tried to respond to the allegations put as best as he could but given the generalised nature and lack of detail, he was not aware of what or when the events concerned occurred. In his witness statement he said this:- “7) I understand that the Claimant alleges that on 26 April 2023, she became aware that I was recording her. I don’t remember this date specifically, or whether I did record her. However, I remember a meeting with the Claimant when Himanshu was put in post, and I was told by the Claimant that he was going to be my manager. During this meeting she brought up my councillors leave, carers and sickness leave as well as my amended job description. I think this was the meeting in question however I asked to record due to how previous meetings with the Claimant went. It was only me, Himanshu and the Claimant in the meeting, and I believe I recorded this to take notes in the event I needed to contest anything that had been said. Usually, I wouldn’t record our meetings as other more people would be involved but I felt that this was a meeting that needed to be recorded.”[324]He was also challenged about the extent to which he had consulted with two colleagues when drafting the FTSU complaint, whether he sought to override (we took that to mean influence) their views and the way in which it was escalated.[325]Mr Beetham provided a measured explanation stating he had only had contact with one of the colleagues regarding the FTSU complaint and had set out the views of others as they had set them out (irrespective of whether he agreed with them). He also explained in response to questions why they had been escalated in the way they were, stating that as they were about Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay and that their line manager, Mr Parr, was aware of the them and had done nothing that it needed to be escalated to his line manager, Mr Khan. 65 / 112[326]Whilst it was suggested his witness statement was contradictory on whether he recorded the meeting or not, whilst it could have been drafted more clearly, we find he did preface what he said in his witness statement that he could not recall whether he did record the meeting. He also speculated on the date it had possibly taken place given Ms Khambay had not provided one and told us he believed he “recorded this to take notes in the event I needed to contest anything that had been said”. In the light of the lack of specificity from Ms Khambay, we find he was doing his best to assist the Tribunal and to give a full account of events. Further, we find he made it clear he could not recall if he had recorded the meeting and the comments that followed were predicated upon that.[327]He told us orally whilst he had recorded meetings with managers he only did so with their consent and otherwise took a note of the meeting and if he had asked to record a meeting with Ms Khambay it was based on previous meetings not going well. That is consistent with what he stated in his witness statement and supported by the contents of the anonymous letter [286 -287] he sent to Mr Khan (see (48)) on or about 5 January 2023.[328]If a reliability point is to be made it lies principally against Ms Khambay’s lack of recall, something which we identified we would accept at the outset. Despite Ms Khambay’s repeated assertions that that stemmed from the consequences of the discrimination she was subjected to and repeated reminders form the tribunal to provide medical evidence in support of both the adjustments sought and contention as to the cause she failed to provide any further evidence other than that we refer to at (14 & 85).[329]Given the lack of weight we give to Ms Khambay’s account for the reasons we give at various points throughout this lengthy judgment and the weight we give to Mr Beethams’ evidence (see (158)) we prefer his account to hers. We find given what had happened previously if he had asked to record a meeting(s) he would have only done so if that was agreed and alternatively, he would have made a note.[330]Further we find that his reasons for making that request (if made) were those set out at (327). They were in no sense influenced by race or sex. Instead, he, like others, perceived her (and Mr Aslam) to be managers who sought to go against previous agreements, failed to provide evidence to support their assertions, did not follow procedure, sought to relay meetings in a different light to his perception of them and whom (our words) he did not trust.[331]These complaints also fail. On 2 May 2023, at a meeting about FTSU concerns, the Claimant was questioned about how she was perceived within the business and the frequency of contact she had with Mr Aslam. She was advised to move away from Mr Aslam, not to car share with him and not to be in the office with him. Direct Discrimination. (race and/or religion/belief) [2.2.5] & (sex) [3.2.10] and Harassment (Sex) [5.1.10][332]The race element of this complaint was withdrawn on 28 November 2025.[333]The way the complaint is put in the claim form is this:- 66 / 112 “11. On 2 May 2023, the Claimant was invited to a meeting to take place the following day, 3 May 2023. The meeting lasted six and a half hours, between 10.30am to 2.30pm and 4pm to 7.30 pm. At the meeting, the Claimant was questioned about the FTSU concerns and concerns as to how she was being perceived within the business and the frequency of contact with Mr Aslam. She was advised to move away from Mr Aslam, not to car share with him and not to be in the office with him. The meeting was intense.”[334]In her witness statement Ms Khambay said this “8. Senior management weaponised my professional interactions with Aslam by imposing inappropriate and unjustified restrictions. I was instructed to avoid him, not to car share with him, not to have lunch with him, and even to alter my working hours to limit contact. These instructions were rooted in gossip rather than legitimate business reasons and served only to isolate me. In addition, Khan made a disparaging remark about my surname, asking “How does that look?” which directly undermined my identity and faith. Taken together, these instructions and remarks created a degrading and humiliating environment, amounting to harassment under section 26 and victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. … 32. On 2 May 2023, I was subject to a six-and-a-half-hour meeting that in substance amounted to an interrogation. During that meeting:a. the discussion centred on vague and undefined “perception” issues;b. I was instructed to alter my working schedule on account of my proximity to Aslam; andc. the process caused significant psychological distress, which led to a period of certified sick leave. This treatment constituted discrimination and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010, as it was directly connected to my protected characteristics and to my having raised protected complaints.”[335]Ms Khambay does not give a date for paragraph 8. Given its references to “not car sharing with him” and “to move away from him” they appear to also relate to the allegations concerning the meeting on 17 August 2023 (which reference to her surname and “How does that look?” (Issues (2.2.8(c), 3.2.16 & 5.1.16)) that we address starting at (460)). 67 / 112[336]There does not appear to be any dispute that instead of this meeting taking place as alleged on 2 May that it occurred on 3 May 2023 [HK/15]. Ms Khambay says [AK/11c] that it was following this meeting that she heard about the rumours (see (235)).[337]Mr Khan said this of the meeting:- “15. On or around 3 May 2023, I had a meeting with the Claimant to discuss the concerns that individuals had raised with me. I also had a meeting with Mr Aslam a few days later. I discussed what individuals had said without identifying them given that individuals had expressed concern that they would be targeted for raising concerns. As explained above, the Clamant had already seen the anonymous letter in January and so our meeting was to understand the Claimant’s perspective on the concerns raised in the letter as well as to discuss the further themes that had been raised with me as part of the Listening Exercise. Examples of concerns raised were(1) individuals had been targeted or exited from the organisation;(2) that the return to the office post-Covid hadn’t been managed well and without proper consultation;(3) The Claimant did not have the required knowledge or skillset for the role, and that when team members asked her for guidance, she was unable to help;(4) that there was a cultural issue and feeling that there was an ‘in crowd’ leading to the team being divided. I spoke through all of these concerns with the Claimant. … I recall thinking that the Claimant appeared to be going out of her way to try to help the staff members. 16. The Claimant showed a good understanding of the concerns raised in the letter and explained actions that had been taken to address them, … [gives examples] 17. I felt that the Claimant gave a plausible explanation to the issues raised and she explained why she had behaved in the way that she did under some difficult circumstances. I remember leaving the meeting thinking I could see her perspective and felt that she was trying to do the right thing. She was putting in a lot of effort and was demonstrating commitment to doing the job well. …18.1 … I had a board meeting in the diary from 1.30-4pm and so the meeting did not take place in those hours. I recall meeting with the Claimant prior to this from around 10.30am and again afterwards. The Claimant had a lot to say, and I wanted to ensure that she had the opportunity to say 68 / 112 everything that she wished to say. I considered that I was being supportive in the circumstances. At no point during the meeting did the Claimant say that the meeting was going on for too long or ask for it to end.18.2 … For context, one of the concerns that had been raised by the team was that the Claimant and Mr Aslam were acting as though they were in a relationship, that they were always together, that there was inefficiency as they were doubling everything up at work, that they were attending the same meetings when they didn’t both need to be there, that that they would be in the office together with the door shut and that they were carrying out team appraisals together which made staff feel intimidated. I was concerned about the impact that this was having on the team and staff wellbeing. Staff were raising that they felt intimidated by the fact that the Claimant and Mr Aslam were always together and if they had a meeting with, for example, the Claimant, Mr Aslam would also be there. The feedback from the department was that this was creating tension and impacting on the team. The Claimant and Mr Aslam were both senior leaders in the department, and therefore should role model Trust behaviours and amend their behaviours in line with the feedback. It was in this context that I discussed with the Claimant the perception she and Mr Aslam were giving to the team, and how it was impacting on the department. In respect of car sharing, I could see the impact the behaviours were having on the team as several people had raised concerns about them car sharing and appearing constantly together, and the perception this gave, and so I was providing suggestions on how to address it. I did not tell the Claimant to stop car sharing with Mr Aslam. I did ask why they needed to car share and if it could be done in a different way or less frequently, given that one of the concerns raised in the letter was that they were both acting in tandem. I am shocked that my supportive suggestions have been translated into the allegations that have been made.”[338]Miss Abbas told us:- “15. Ms Khambay was unfairly penalised for her association with Mr Aslam. She was told not to share transport, not to eat lunch with him, and to work in physical isolation. 16. She was stripped of professional responsibilities without explanation. These actions had no operational justification and were discriminatory.”[339]Miss Abbas accepted she was not present at the 3 May 2023 meeting and neither she nor Ms Khambay told us when she was told this. Further in crossexamination Miss Abbas was unable to explain what responsibilities Ms Khambay was stripped of; GEH allege that none were and Miss Abbas was not 69 / 112 in a position to comment whether those actions were operationally justifiable, or discriminatory, or not.[340]As Mr Heard states the use of ‘weaponised’ is consistent with what GEH now see (although not at the time) as Ms Khambay’s failure to see matters from GEH’s perspective. We agree.[341]For the reasons we give relating to her account elsewhere, save where otherwise supported we place no weight on Ms Khambay’s account. We prefer Mr Khan’s account to hers.[342]Whilst Ms Khambay describes what occurred as “weaponised” her complaint focuses on 342.1. the perception of staff and a criticism of Mr Khan raising it with her, 342.2. the failure to detail the allegations, 342.3. the length of the meeting, 342.4. the alleged instructions Mr Khan gave, and 342.5. the reference to her surname.[343]We also agree that “in a situation where there was legitimate concern about the extent of C’s interactions with KA, it was reasonable for HK to have discussed this with C and explain how those interactions were perceived by others.” We however add that not only was it legitimate to do so but incumbent on Mr Khan to do so.[344]Given the nature of FTSU complains, the concern of the makers about reprisals and the need to keep them anonymous, we find it was understandable why specifics had not been provided previously. This was not after all at that point a disciplinary investigation. We find Ms Khambay had however been made aware of the tenor of the FTSU complaints late the previous year, the anonymous letter and Mr Khan were raising further issues with her as part of that meeting.[345]Ms Khambay makes no suggestion she complained about the length of the meeting at the time. Given the various delays in her and Mr Aslam being spoken to due to absences and religious adherence, there is at least a possibility she would have wanted to “get on with it”.[346]Mr Khan told us (which we accept) he accepted some of her explanations. As to others we find they were not perception issues but legitimate concerns than Mr Khan had identified as part of the listening exercise and they were widespread. They were things Ms Khambay clearly did not agree with. Whilst Ms Khambay complains about these matters being raised at other points, she also complains that she had not been told what the complaints about her were. As we say above, Mr Khan was obliged to address the matters raised as part of the listening exercise with her. Whether true, false or a mix, they needed to be investigated.[347]We consider that Mr Khan was asking Ms Khambay in the same way he would have done to any manager where concerns had been raised about that 70 / 112 manager’s perceived proximity to another member of staff (whether or not that person was his/her own line manager) and irrespective of whether the rumours had any substance.[348]Similarly with regard to Ms Khambay adopting Mr Aslam’s surname. We find Mr Khan would have asked the question “How does that look?” to anyone in those circumstances:- 348.1. where complaints had been made about their perceived closeness to a work colleague/manager and how that was impacting on the team and 348.2. one of those individuals had adopted the other’s surname.[349]It was a legitimate question to ask. We find Ms Khambay was not treated less favourably as a result. Nor was the question being asked in any sense due to her sex, faith or identity, it would have been asked of anyone in those circumstances.[350]If this offended Ms Khambay (she does not detail to any real degree how it created the circumstances proscribed by s.26(1)), we find absent the detail of how or what was said or done it was not objectively reasonable in the circumstances for that to be so. It was a valid question in the light of the complaints made in the listening exercise.[351]Accordingly, the direct discrimination and harassment complaints under this head also fail. 10 May 2023 Maxine Buckler as Data Quality Manager was responsible for the Local Urgent Needs Assessment, this information should have been reported to the Claimant but she was sidestepped and excluded and this was fed back directly to Michael Parr. Direct Discrimination (race) [2.2.1(d)] & (sex) [3.2.2(b)][352]Again, there is no contemporaneous documentary evidence about this complaint. It was not mentioned in Ms Khambay’s grievance. It was not mentioned in the particulars of claim other than that she “felt ignored, sidestepped, and talked about” (see (136137).[353]The only mention in Ms Khambay’s witness was the passing general reference to that issue at “2c … ●10/05/2023 – Sidestepped and excluded, as reported to Parr.”[354]Ms Khambay made only two direct references to Mrs Buckler in her witness statement any of those documents. The one we reference at (256) and another than does not form part of the issues before us:- “2h … 71 / 112 Encouraged by Buckler & Beetham (informed by Raju, Jaggat, Abbas, Savage)“[355]We were not referred to any mention of this specific incident in Ms Khambay’s grievance other than the matter we reference at (138).[356]Mr Aslam made only one reference to Mrs Buckler in his witness statement being the one we refer to at (379).[357]The first time it appeared so far as we can tell was in the list of issues.[358]Mrs Buckler told us:- “5.3 … I do not know what the Local Needs Assessment is and I have never heard of this report.”[359]Mrs Buckler was not challenged about this incident and despite repeated reminders to Mr Aslam to challenge issues on this (and other occasions) She told us she never sent anything direct to Mr Parr other than the minutes of the data quality assurance meetings which she prepared. Indeed, she gave the example of repeatedly being required to take minutes of meetings when normally they were shared out was another example of the way she was picked on by the claimant.[360]In the absence of Ms Khambay detailing when this was said to have occurred, what happened and how that was related to any of her protected characteristics at any point other than the list of issues it must fail.[361]Ms Khambay pursuing such a serious allegation that could easily ruin a colleague’s career in the absence of any detail does her no credit. On 26th May 2023 during a team huddle, Lynne Betteridge and Katie Hughes were reluctant to take on training for Power BI and upon the Claimant seeking to encourage the team by giving an example of smart phones developing, Katie Hughes made a comment that they couldn’t all be like you causing her to feel embarrassed and undermined. Direct Discrimination (race and/or religion/belief) [2.2.2(b)] & (sex) [3.2.3 (b)][362]This allegation was not mentioned in C’s grievance or her claim form. In her witness statement Ms Khambay said this:- “2c. … ● 26/05/2023 - Huddle meeting in which Hughes and Betteridge made a comment ‘that we can not all be like you!’ “[363]Mr Aslam nor Ms Abbas make any mention of it and there is no documentary evidence of it having been raised by Ms Khambay at the time.[364]Ms Khambay’s witness statement is at odds with the way the complaint is put in two respects:- 72 / 112 364.1. Her witness statement alleged that both Ms Hughes and Mrs Betteridge uttered these words whereas the complaint only referred to Ms Hughes having done so, and 364.2. Her witness statement made no reference to the rationale for them doing so; their reluctance to undertake the training.[365]As to the former, when asked about this Ms Khambay repeatedly told us that Ms Hughes made the comment and Mrs Betteridge followed it up saying the same thing. Having been re-put several times she accepted the complaint did not say that Mrs Betteridge make the comment. She was repeatedly asked why given she had access to advice at the outset of her complaint (as we say it was professionally drawn up and she was represented at the first hearing) she only alleged Mrs Betteridge made the comment as well in her witness statement. She sought to give a number of explanations which did not address the issue before accepting she did not know why she had not said it.[366]Ms Hughes said this in witness statement:- “6 (b) … I do recall making the comment to the Claimant that “we all can’t be like you”, but to put it into context this was not delivered as a criticism but as a compliment that we were not all as knowledgeable in the field of smart phone development. I know Lynne did not want to do PowerBI training, and although I would have been interested in learning PowerBI, it was not particularly relevant to our role, and I expressed this at the time. Nothing more was said regarding the subject during the meeting. My understanding from that team huddle was that there was an option to participate, and I chose not to and therefore did not pursue it further. I also learned from others who had attended the course that there was a pre-requisite to have SQL skills and knowledge to complete it, which I did not have [p742]. I deny that any comments I made in respect of PowerBi training were linked to the Claimant’s race, religion or sex.”[367]Ms Hughes in cross examination accepted she had said the words but they were meant as a compliment rather than a criticism and described herself as a technophobe. She explained she didn’t feel she needed to partake in the training, it was not part of her role, she knew how to read from Power BI from working on it as NHS England and NHS digital produced material via it and that the team just needed to view the material. She went on to say that Ms Khambay did not push back to ask what she meant, did not look embarrassed, do or say anything to cause Ms Hughes to think that she had upset Ms Khambay and the first time she knew it was an issue for Ms Khambay was when she raised it in the Tribunal claim.[368]Mrs Betteridge said this in witness statement:- “9(b) … Katie Hughes and I were reluctant to take on training for Power BI and when the Claimant sought to encourage the 73 / 112 team by giving an example of smart phones developing, that Katie Hughes allegedly made a comment that they could not all be like her causing her to feel embarrassed and undermined. I do recall this comment being made by Katie, however I interpreted more that she was complimenting the Claimant on her skills and knowledge. PowerBI training was introduced following funding that Khalil Aslam had secured, with the intention of rolling it out to the team. It was presented as a great opportunity for analysts. However, I'm not an analyst and it has never been part of my role; I do not sit in the Analytics team. I remember expressing to Mr Aslam that I personally did not wish to learn PowerBI. While it could enhance my job, I was content with my current position. I mentioned this to Mr Aslam but not to the Claimant. The training was portrayed as mandatory, but I did not see the need or desire to participate, as producing Power BI reports is not in my job description. Power BI involves using SQL scripts to compile reports and scripting to manage the backend, which is typically the responsibility of analysts. This is completely outside the scope of my role. …”[369]When Mrs Betteridge was cross examined, it was not put to her directly that she had said the words and Ms Khambay accepted that it was only Ms Hughes who used the words. Mrs Betteridge accepted that Ms Hughes had used the words but not in a “nasty way” and indicated there was no response from Ms Khambay to suggest she was upset by the comment.[370]It was alleged that there was laughter following the comment. That was not put to Ms Hughes (who gave evidence before Ms Betteridge). It was also alleged Mr Aslam was there. She was unable to recall that and didn’t recall Ms Khambay saying that. Neither he nor Ms Khambay made any mention of it in their witness statements.[371]Again, had that been an issue at the time, Ms Khambay should have pursued it. Similarly given Mr Aslam put to Ms Betteridge that he was there so should he. Their failure to do so reduces the weight we give to Ms Khambay’s account.[372]Other than her assertion that the staff at GEH generally were racist and Islamophobic for which Ms Khambay provided little tangible evidence, she provided no evidence to which we could attach any weight that suggested that Ms Hughes or Mrs Betteridge were either, or indeed the comments were made in some sense because of Ms Khambay’s sex.[373]Given the changes to Ms Khambay’s account on both this issue and generally, in any event we give her account no weight. We find the burden has not shifted to GEH. We decline to draw any inferences that the comments were in any sense related to sex, race or religion.[374]In any event we prefer the evidence of Ms Hughes and Mrs Betteridge. We find that Ms Hughes did use the words, but they were in no sense said due to Ms 74 / 112 Khambay’s race, religion or sex. Nor did those matters play any part. We find they were said in the context of staff being asked to undertake work they felt was outside their role and at too high a level; whilst they felt Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay could undertake the work, Ms Hughes and Mrs Betteridge felt they could not. As a result, we find as Mr Heard suggested that there was a disjunct of expectations between Ms Khambay and her team and Ms Khambay did not seek to address the issues that underlay that.[375]Again, this complaint fails for those reasons. THE COMPLAINTS FOLLOWING MR BUCKLER’S DEPARTURE (CONT.)[376]The next two allegations concern Ms Khambay being ignored, sidestepped and talked about following the departure of Mr Joseph Buckler. (1) That on 18 July 2023 during a lunchtime gathering, Maxine Buckler, Lynne Betteridge and Katie Hughes ignored the Claimant when she approached them and tried to engage in conversation. Direct Discrimination (race) - 2.2.1(a)[377]Again, no specific detail of this complaint is set out in the claim form. Instead this complaint again rests on the allegation Ms Khambay “felt ignored, sidestepped, and talked about” (see (136137)).[378]We were not taken to where it was raised in Ms Khambay’s grievance.[379]In her witness statement Ms Khambay said this:- “2c Direct Discrimination (s.13 EqA) … ● 18/07/2023 – ignored by DQ team when trying to engage in conversation. ● 10/05/2023 - Sidestepped and excluded, as reported to Parr”[380]In his section headed “Observations on Discrimination and Harassment” Mr Aslam said this (see 152)):- “3a. I witnessed that following Joseph Buckler's departure in July 2022, certain colleagues began treating Ms. Khambay with hostility, ignoring her authority. These included Maxine Buckler, Brett Beetham, Lynne Betteridge and Katie Hughes. I witnessed the behavior [sic.] of some colleagues significantly change, the became very augmentative and critical. I observed as Ms Khambay was repeatedly ignored, sidestepped, and talked about by her teams. I witnessed her attend the Informatics office to delegate work and be directly ignored. I was present when Ms Khambay raised these concerns with Mr Parr, who informed her that it was because she was Asian and they are a team of white colleagues. I can contest that both 75 / 112 Khan and Parr were fully aware of these inappropriate behaviors, [sic.]that Ms Khambay faced by the team daily.”[381]Mr Aslam thus uses exactly the same phase in his witness statement as in the complaint although Ms Khambay does not. Other than the generalised allegation neither give any real detail.[382]Mrs Hughes said this in her witness statement:- “6a) that on 18 July 2023 during a lunchtime gathering, Maxine Buckler, Lynne Betteridge and I ignored the Claimant when she approached us and tried to engage in conversation. On 16 July 2023 Himanshu Jagat sent me an email, on behalf of the Claimant, inviting me to a lunchtime birthday celebration on 18 July. [p634]. Maxine and Lynne were working from home that day but both travelled into the Department to attend the joint Birthday celebration for 4 members of our Informatics and Clinical Coding Teams, Adel Khan, (Data Scientist) Ruth Gregory (A&E Clinical Coder), Jack Grant-Hughes (Accredited Clinical Coder) and Susan Jones (Clinical Coding Manager). Only 2 of those recipients were in the office on that day, Adel Khan and Susan Jones. I was working in the office where the event was being held, and in part, I was sat at my desk. There were at least 14 other colleagues, in this room and around my desk periodically, from the Data Quality Team, Workforce Information Team, Clinical Coding Team and Informatics Team, and therefore this space was not isolated to the three of us who are cited in the allegation. I recall the Claimant coming over to speak to me and I acknowledged her cordially. I did not therefore ignore the Claimant as she alleges. I also recall the Claimant challenging Maxine as to why she was not mingling in the room. I deny that anything I did was due to the Claimant’s race, religion and/or sex.[383]Orally Mrs Hughes told us that she didn’t ignore or sidestep Ms Khambay, she was sat in a chair, Ms Khambay came over and asked Mrs Buckler why she was not mingling. Mrs Hughes told us that she got up and talked to colleagues in the room.[384]Mrs Betteridge told us - “9a) the Claimant alleges that on 18 July 2023, during a lunchtime gathering myself, Maxine Buckler and Katie Hughes ignored the Claimant when she approached us and tried to engage in conversation. I do recall this day; it was a joint celebration party for four team members. Katie was working in the office and myself and Maxine Buckler were working from home. We both went into the office from home to attend the celebrations. When we arrived at the office, we stood behind the desk on the right side when entering the office where Katie was working. In front of us in the right corner was Haq Khan 76 / 112 and Khalil Aslam, in the opposite left corner was the Claimant, and a few others from Information/Data Warehouse team and in the left corner was Adel Khan (Data Scientist) working at a desk and Himanshu Jaggat (Data Science Manager) was stood next to him. The coding team had also joined us and stood by us and into the centre of the room. The Claimant did come over to us to speak and I clearly recollect that we all replied. I can even remember her saying to Maxine “you should be mingling”. This stuck in my mind as it did not feel appropriate to have been said. I deny that I treated the Claimant differently in this gathering due to her race/religion and/or sex.”[385]Despite reminders generally to put matters in dispute his allegation was not put to Mrs Betteridge in cross examination. The panel raised with her the following comments from her witness statement :- “4. … Our interactions were intermittent as my office is located in the clinical coding office, while the Claimant was not in our corridor. Later due to room location change as per rota, we only met when she came to the office to consult with the analysts in the Analytics team. There were occasions when the Claimant entered the office and spoke to other team members walking around the room, however she would tend to ignore me and Maxine Buckler. This changed following the meeting with Haq, when she would occasionally say Good Morning when entering the office.”[386]Mrs Bucker said this:- “5.1. that on 18 July 2023 during a lunchtime gathering, myself, Lynne Betteridge (Senior Data Quality Officer) and Katie Hughes (Senior Data Quality Officer) ignored the Claimant when she approached us and tried to engage in conversation. I believe the gathering the Claimant was referring to was lunchtime gathering for a colleague’s birthday, Adel Khan (Data Scientist). I was working from home, however a lunchtime birthday gathering had been arranged and all staff had been invited to attend. I didn’t want to be singled out for not attending, and so I went into work specifically for the lunchtime gathering. When I walked into the room, Haq Khan (Chief Finance Officer) and Khalil Aslam stood in the far right corner and remained together in the same place for the entire time I was there. The Claimant was stood in the far-left corner with some colleagues and those from the Clinical Coding team and the Data Quality team were standing together in the near right corner. The data analysts stood in the near left corner of the room. I went to stand with my team, and I was having a general work conversation with Katie Hughes (Senior Data Quality Officer) as she had been working onsite that day. I believe the Claimant came across for food and spoke generally to 77 / 112 everyone in the Clinical Coding team and Data Quality team. Everyone acknowledged her and responded, including myself. Later the Claimant shouted across at me to say that I wasn’t mingling. I responded to say that nobody was mingling. All staff (including the Claimant) remained with the initial groups that they had been with from the beginning of the gathering, other than collecting food. I deny that I ignored the Claimant. I responded to the question she asked and acknowledged her when she spoke in general terms to the group.”[387]When Mrs Buckler was asked why she had alleged when had been ignored when Ms Khambay actively tried to engage with her the judge’s note records Mrs Bucker as saying this to Mr Aslam:- “Lots of people in diff corners You and Haq Katie and DQ team in another Aneet in corner with analysts Himanshu in another corner with Adil Haq’s son I didn’t want to come in but felt I had to Stood with Katie and DQ team Clinical coding came in and joined us When I walked in no one said hello Everyone spoke to Aneet and greeted her back A while later she saying I wasn’t mingling no one else said that incl. you and Haq In own time yet I was only person asked I didn’t move”[388]Ms Abbas said this:- “6. Mr. Joseph Buckler, worked as a Data Scientist leaving his position with the Trust around July 2022. Following his departure, I observed a noticeable shift in the behaviour of some colleagues toward the Claimant. Their attitudes became markedly negative. On several occasions, I witnessed the Claimant being ignored when she entered the informatics office to delegate tasks. It appeared that her input was being deliberately disregarded. I also became aware of colleagues appearing to scrutinise her actions closely, seemingly looking for opportunities to criticise her. The Claimant confided in me that she felt excluded, undermined, and that people were speaking about her behind her back. From what I observed and understood, both Mr. 78 / 112 Khan and Mr. Parr were aware of how the Claimant was being treated, out they did not take any visible steps to address the situation or to support her appropriately.”[389]That refences back to the comments we make starting at (284) but does not specifically reference this instance.[390]Again, there is no contemporaneous documentary evidence of this complaint. For the reasons we give at (110) it was incumbent on both Mr Khambay and Mr Aslam to do so and to pursue the point if not addressed. Again, that leads us to give less weight to the account of Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam on this issue. We were not taken to where Mr Aslam refers to this incident despite being present.[391]Given those matters are so and the little weight we give to Ms Khambay’s account generally where unsupported we prefer the accounts of Mrs Buckler, Mrs Betteridge and Ms Hughes. We find Ms Khambay was not ignored. Accordingly, this complaint fails. (2) Undated, Maxine Butler has spoken to a Maarya Abbas and Hema Raju and said if you have any issues or concerns do not speak to the Claimant and to speak to FTSU instead. As a result, a number of people were going to FTSU to have their exit interviews. Direct Discrimination (race) – 2.2.1(e) & (sex) – 3.2.2(c)[392]No date is given when this occurred but given all the complaints under 2.2.1 and 3.2.2 are prefaced with “Following the departure of Mr Joseph Buckler …” it must have occurred after July 2022 when Mr Buckler left GEH [MB/5].[393]Whilst Mr Heard argues if Mr Buckler’s departure was the cause of the alleged change in behaviour that was nothing to do with her race, religious belief or sex, that does not necessarily follow. Mr Heard goes on to argue it has never been Ms Khambay’s case that was so. He points out that again there is no documentary evidence of her having raised this issue at the time, it was not mentioned in her grievance or subsequent grievance hearings and she has led no evidence about it her witness statement.[394]Again, we repeated what we say at various points above about the duty of Ms Khambay, Mr Aslam and Miss Abbas to report this at the time.[395]The only evidence that Ms Khambay has led has been from Mr Aslam and Miss Abbas. We relay Mr Aslam’s account at (380). Miss Abbas said this:- “13. I personally witnessed Maxine and Brett advising junior colleagues to bypass line management and submit FTSU complaints with the objective to discredit Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay.“ and on a similar vein this:- “14. Complaints included trivial matters like heating and broken chairs but were escalated and used strategically against the leadership.” 79 / 112[396]Neither give details when this is alleged to have occurred, where or what was said. Miss Abbas does not name the junior colleagues and Mr Aslam does not assert who the “some colleagues” were whose behaviour significantly changed becoming very augmentative and critical.[397]No evidence was provided by Ms Khambay from Ms Raju.[398]Contrary to what Ms Khambay alleges, Miss Abbas asserts that Mr Beetham was involved, whereas the complaint does not. Nor was Mr Beetham asked about that in cross examination.[399]Mrs Buckler denied the complaint in her witness statement [MB/5.4]:- “5.4 … The Claimant says that this led to a number of people having their exit interviews with FTSU. I deny this allegation and I did not tell Maarya and Hema to go to FTSU. Maarya and Hema both seemed to be friends with the Claimant and would often be seen walking arm in arm together around the Trust. Therefore, it wouldn’t have made sense for me to tell them to go to FTSU rather than her. I have never had any conversation with Maarya about the Claimant. The only conversation I had with Hema regarding the Claimant was to advise her not to send an anonymous letter to the CEO, and for her to send it to Haq Khan (Chief Finance Officer) therefore following the chain of command. I understand this to be the letter which is at pages 120-121 of the bundle, although I did not see a copy of this prior to it being sent to Haq.”[400]She repeated that in cross examination.[401]Ms Khambay was asked repeatedly about the alleged change in attitudes after Mr Buckler left. Ms Khambay stated that her complaints prior to Mr Buckler’s departure were not major. When it was pointed out that she was pursuing complaints prior to then her position changed and stated the events prior were also major. She did not address the fact that was at odds with her allegations concerning the change in position after his departure or how they were related to protected characteristics. To adopt the phrase used by Mr Heard we find this is a further example of Ms Khambay “making it up as she went along”.[402]Those points and the general credibility points we make about Ms Khambay and their effect on the weight of her evidence, given their failure to raise or pursue the issue at the time that causes us to place less weight on Miss Abbas and Mr Aslam’s account. Ms Khambay’s account is based on that of Miss Abbas and Ms Raju. Ms Raju has not given evidence or tendered a statement. Miss Abbas’s account is at odds with the core complaint in that she also names Mr Beetham. Neither she nor Mr Aslam given any real detail of what was said or done, by whom and when that forms the basis of the complaint. Accordingly, we prefer the evidence of Mrs Buckler. We find this complaint did not occur and fails. 80 / 112 THE FOUR COMPLAINTS FROM 7/8 AUGUST 2023[403]The first two of these complaints stem from the following allegation in the claim form so we address them together:- “14. On 7 August 2023, the Claimant was informed that she would be reporting to Michael Parr with immediate effect (rather than Mr Aslam). Simultaneously, by way of apparent criticism, she was told that had she dealt with the issue of perception and FTSU concerns, they would not be in this situation. What situation the Respondent meant, the Claimant was unsure. She then started to receive a number of emails from Michael Parr, passing on Mr Aslams' work to her.”(1) On 7 August 2023, the Claimant was informed that she would be reporting to Michael Parr with immediate effect (rather than Mr Aslam). Direct Discrimination (race and/or religion/belief) [2.2.6], (sex) [3.2.11] & Harassment (Sex) [5.1.11](2) On 7 August 2023, by way of apparent criticism, the Claimant was told that had she dealt with the issue of perception and FTSU concerns, they would not be in this situation Direct Discrimination (race and/or religion/belief) [2.2.7], (sex) [3.2.12] & Harassment (Sex) – [5.1.12][404]Neither of these complaints are included with the prayers at paragraphs 25 & 26 of the particulars of complaint regarding the sex, race and religion and belief complaints.[405]Nor is there any contemporaneous documentary evidence of this complaint.[406]The first mention of it is in Ms Khambay’s grievance starting at 11a [512] “11a. On the 7th of August 2023, Michael instructed Himanshu Jagat [Data Science Manager] and I to attend an unscheduled meeting with him on the fourth floor of the maternity building at 16:00. During this meeting Michael told me that I would now be reporting directly to him. with immediate effect, he also mentioned that had I dealt with the issue of ’perception' and ‘FTSU' -we would not be in this situation today [the situation Michael was alluding to was Khalil Aslam being moved out of the information and Performance team]. 12a. These allegations and comments are unacceptable and sexist and have only been made due to my gender. Some of the above-mentioned behaviours came across as predatory, an invasion of personal space and these comments were not warranted end not encouraged.”[407]In Ms Khambay’s witness statement this is referred to as follows:- 81 / 112 … ● 07/08/2023 - Parr informed me that he would be my now line managers and that had I dealt with the issue of perception and FTSU concerns, we would not be in this situation. … 11. Michael Parr suggested that I was responsible for the situation by alleging that I had mishandled so-called “perception” issues, implying that the treatment I experienced was self-inflicted. This assertion was unfounded, … This was said multiple times by Mr Parr: … d. 7th August 2023 – line management change meeting”[408]Mr Parr says this of that allegation:- “13.1. … On or around 7 August 2023 Mr Aslam was temporarily redeployed to work with Andy Laverick at SWFT Clinical Services ltd on digital transformation across the Foundation Group, which the Trust were a part of. This was whilst a Dignity at Work investigation was undertaken involving Mr Aslam. As Mr Aslam was no longer working in the Information Department at the Trust, I took on the line management responsibilities for all of his direct reports, including the Claimant. The Data Quality Team had been temporarily relocated (to Lewes House) and reported to Sonita Osborne (rather than Mr Aslam) on a temporary basis. Haq Khan provided an update to the department on 10 August 2023 outlining that these were temporary changes [p372- 373]. Prior to this communication I also met with the Claimant to inform her of this change. I believe that this meeting took place on 9 August, not 7 August as alleged [p382]. Himanshu was also in attendance at the meeting. During the meeting, the Claimant stated that the interim changes to reporting lines, and the events of the previous week had come as a shock and that she needed to take some time away to process what was happening, which I agreed to. The Claimant was then off sick for a number of months [p374-375, 379, 382-384]. 13.2. [as to the allegation that] the Claimant was told that had she dealt with the issue of perception and FTSU concerns, they would not be in this situation. I deny this allegation; I discussed with the Claimant the change in reporting lines and that the Claimant had been temporarily re-deployed. The Claimant responded to say that Himanshu Jagat “will report to me [the Claimant]”. I confirmed that Himanshu would report to 82 / 112 me not her and that was the end of the discussion. I did not discuss ‘perception’ and her dealing with the FTSU concerns.”[409]Mr Parr’s evidence [MP/13.1] is that he met with Ms Khambay on 9 August, not 7 August 2023. That is consistent with his follow-up letter dated 25 August 2023 [382] which references their meeting on 9 August 2023. Nor does it appear to be in dispute that Mr Parr informed Ms Khambay of the change in her line management.[410]Ms Khambay makes no mention in her witness statement that Mr Jagat was present during the meeting.[411]In the grievance report it is recorded that Mr Jagat [865]: “When interviewed, … advised that he had attended a meeting with Michael Parr and Aneet Khambay in early August 2023, but he did not recall Michael Parr saying that if he had addressed the Freedom To Speak Up concerns and the perception of Aneet Khambay in the business that they would not be in the current position. He did recall Michael Parr advising that Khalil Aslam had been moved from his post and confirmed that Himanshu Jagat would now report into Aneet Khambay. When asked if Michael Parr said anything concerning during that meeting, he advised that he did not recall anything concerning being said by Michael Parr at this meeting (Appendix 13)”[412]When that was put to Ms Khambay in cross examination as undermining her account, she disagreed stating all that meant was that he couldn’t recall what was said and it would not mean the same for him as for her.[413]Mr Jagat was not called by Ms Khambay to give evidence before us so his account generally or as part of the grievance investigation was not tested before us.[414]If Mr Jagat had felt Mr Parr was directly discriminating against or harassing Ms Khambay, he too was duty bound to report it at the time. He did not. That supports the account he gave to the grievance investigation.[415]Likewise, Ms Khambay. Again, she did not raise a contemporaneous complaint. She only did so 3 months later, after she was informed of the decision to commence a formal investigation into the management style and culture within the Information Team.[416]That aside we find the change to Ms Khambay’s line management reporting was due to Mr Aslam being assigned elsewhere due to the dignity at work investigation relating to him. We find it had nothing to do with Ms Khambay’s sex, religion or belief or race. Ms Khambay asserting it was, again casts doubt upon her perception of events and the weight we give to her account. Nor do we find that a person whose circumstances were materially the same as Ms Khambay would have been treated any differently to her. Further, Ms Khambay has not shown that the circumstances proscribed by s.26(1) occurred such that the threshold was breached. 83 / 112[417]The direct discrimination and harassment complaints under the first of these two complaints accordingly fail.[418]As to the allegation that Mr Parr told Ms Khambay Claimant that had she dealt with the issue of perception and FTSU concerns, they would not be in that situation we find that it did not occur as alleged. Mr Jagat did not recall this being said it is likely irrespective of the change in his own reporting line as alleged by Mr Parr, he would have recalled this given his involvement in the meeting and the effect this would have on the team. Mr Parr flatly denies it and for the reasons we give elsewhere we give Ms Khambay’s account no weight. We find in event shown this was in no sense connected to Ms Khambay’s sex, race or religion/belief.[419]Accordingly, the direct discrimination and harassment complaints under the second of these two complaints also fail. (3) 7/8 August 2023 During the course of her employment, the Claimant received negative comments about her becoming a Muslim in particular;(a) on or around 7 or 8 August 2023, a comment was made concerning the fact that the Claimant had converted to Islam. It was said that as the Claimant had converted, Himanshu would be next and he was asked when he was going to convert and become a "Hassan" and(b) On or around 7 or 8 August 2023, Asking when Himanshu Jaggat was going to convert and become a ‘Hassan’, an Islamic name; Direct Discrimination (race and/or religious belief) - 2.2.8(a) and (b) & (sex) – 3.2.13 & Harassment (Sex) – 5.1.13[420]There was no contemporaneous documentation of this complaint. The claim form included this allegation [18]: “18. On or around 7 or 8 August 2023, Sid Singh's team were speaking to Himansu. A comment was made concerning the fact that the Claimant had converted to Islam. It was said that as the Claimant had converted, Himanshu would be next and he was asked when he was going to convert and become a "Hassan", an Islamic name.”[421]Thus, the allegation was that it was Mr Singh’s team rather than a named individual(s) who were speaking to Mr Jagat at the time a comment was made.[422]In her witness statement Ms Khambay stated: “2c … 07/08/2023 – Incident comment I have been converting to Islam, and Himanshu would be next and he would become a Hassan.”[423]Again, Ms Khambay did not name the person who was alleged to be responsible for this allegation. That was put to her in cross examination. She told us she knew the individual’s name and didn’t know why she had not 84 / 112 covered it before. Later she asserted she did not know the level of detail required to be put in her witness statement. As we say at (11 & 12) given the clarity of the case management order, the level of the role she performed and her ability to research matters we do not accept that.[424]As we state starting at (411) in cross examination Ms Khambay was asked about the extract of the grievance report [865]. It was suggested that she was not present when the comment regarding Mr Jagat reverting to Islam was said. She initially stated she had heard that with her own ears before stating that she was told that by Mr Jagat. The question was put a third time because she had not specifically accepted, she was not present. She responded stating that she confronted the person concerned. She only accepted she was not there when it was put a fourth time. Her repeated failure to answer questions directly and substantively changing her account of events was a repeated theme to her responses.[425]Miss Abbas said this in her witness statement:- “11. Clinical Informatics staff mocked Ms Khambay's conversion to [I]slam. Remarks such as ‘When are you becoming a Hassan?’ were directed at Himanshu Jagat in my presence. These were religiously offensive and unacceptable.”[426]Despite Miss Abbas asserting she was present in her statement, Ms Khambay did not. When she was asked about this Miss Abbas expanded by stating a number of people were present but Mr Rathod made the comment. When asked what she meant by “mocked” she stated the people were in a huddle together and they were laughing. She was then asked why she had not put those things in her witness statement if she recalled them. She replied stating she remembered clearly because Hassan was her brother’s name. She then expanded telling us that she was walking down the corridor toward the kitchen when she the informatics team and heard the comment. She indicated that Mr Rathod, Mr Huller Miss Kumari, Mr Jagat and she were present.[427]Again, Miss Abbas’ account changed, her substantially elaborating on what she had said in her witness statement. Importantly she did not include Ms Khambay as someone who was present. Nor did she say she raised the matter at the time or pursue it when it was not addressed.[428]In cross examination Mr Huller was asked about Ms Abbas’s statement. He flatly denied it happened.[429]It was suggested he, his and him referred to Mr Rathod. He told us he was not present when Ms Khambay went to see digital clinical information team, he never heard any comments about Mr Jagat converting and Ms Khambay never made it clear she was hurt about his behaviour (given the way the grievance was drawn we took that to be a response to a general allegation about his behaviours given he denied the specific incident occurred).[430]It was then suggested to Mr Rathod that Ms Khambay was really upset, had this out with him the same day and the contents of her grievance [511] were put to him:- 85 / 112 “7c. … Himansu Jagat was also made a victim of this with colleagues stating that Aneet Khambay had converted to Islam and when was Himanshu going to convert and become Hassan. I was extremely emotional and hurt, distressed feeling why should a woman be made to feel this way and be humiliated due to working closely with mate colleagues. … 7d. … I decided to go directly to the Digital Clinical Informatics office, and spoke to Bipin Rathod, with Shivar [sic.] Huller and Himanshu Jagat present, he confirmed he was the source of the rumour that day and I made it dear to him that I was extremely hurt and unhappy with his behaviours and that of the team, and I would be taking a grievance against them.”[431]Our findings generally about Ms Khambay’s account aside, we attach no weight to her account or that of Miss Abbas in relation to this incident. Her account if she had personally witnessed the incident first hand changed. She failed to provide detail who had told her of the comment. Her account and that of Miss Abbas and Ms Khambay whether Ms Khambay was present or not were at odds. Both Ms Khambay and Miss Abbas elaborated. Miss Abbas identified who was present and who made the comment without providing an adequate explanation why she had not mentioned these things in her statement. Neither explained if and when they had complained about it or followed it up. Those matters lead us to conclude that this did not occur as Ms Khambay (or Miss Abbas) alleged and Ms Khambay’s failure to call Mr Jagat or explain why not, reinforces that view.[432]On a final note, on this point in closing Ms Khambay sought to suggest this complaint was sex discrimination on the basis that no man would have been spoken about in that way. This was at its heart a compliant about comments made about Mr Jagat. To pursue the complaint based on a difference in treatment based on sex when the allegation is that he was treated in the same way is at best ill conceived. It suggests that she was not reflecting on why the words she claimed were used were used or the effect they had. That damages her perception of events, and in turn the weight we give to her account. (4) 8 August 2023 Shivaraj Huller shouted in Punjabi “Congratulations, I heard there had been a wedding in the Information and Performance team”. Direct Discrimination (religion/belief) [2.2.13] & (sex) [3.2.14] & Harassment (Sex) [5.1.14][433]This was originally also argued as race discrimination but that complaint was withdrawn by Ms Khambay.[434]No contemporaneous complaint was made about this issue.[435]Ms Khambay’s grievance said this on this issue [511]: “7d. … This was continuous with another event occurring on 8th of August in which a colleague in the Digital Informatics team shouted in the corridor of the Trust to Himanshu on our way back from lunch, congratulations I heard there’s been a 86 / 112 wedding in the Information and Performance team. I could not believe what was being said right to my face, when HJ translated the message, this was another joke, another source of humiliation and embarrassment another attack. I decided to go directly to the Digital Clinical Informatics office, and spoke to Bipin Rathod, which Shivar Huller and Himanshu Jagat present, he confirmed he was the source of the rumour that day…”[436]Ms Khambay thus did not expressly say she was present.[437]At the sixth grievance meeting (5 June 2025) [723] the minutes record Ms Khambay said this:- “In July / Aug 2023, she was coming back from lunch, was walking with Himanshu, KA had been walking ahead, Raj Haller shouted in an open forum ‘I hear congratulations, there’s going to be a wedding’. Raj had used Punjabi to make the comments and she had to asked Himanshu what he had said, she felt this was a humiliating attack.”[438]At the sixth grievance meeting (5 June 2025) [723] the minutes record Ms Khambay said this:- “AK: Felt after Sid had conversation with the team, situation was worse and felt like it had been confirmed. People were digging even more especially when she chose ‘Aslam’, meaning ‘near to perfect’ as a new surname. People would make a direct attack on her faith. Rag, Bipin, Meena, Menorj, all made jokes about her surname being the same as KA’s. Students in her work experience programme made jokes, and ask Himanshu when he would be converting.”[439]Mrs Kumari, Mr Huller and Mr Srivastava were not challenged about that nor was evidence led detailing when this was and what was said.[440]The claim form gave the following particulars of this event [18]: “20. … A relatively recent example of the ongoing rumours is when on 8 Aug 23 Shivaraj Huller [role omitted] shouted to Himanshu Jaggat in C’s presence, “Congratulations I heard there has been a wedding in the Information and Performance team”. This was spoken in Punjabi which was then translated to the Claimant by Himanshu.[441]In her witness statement Ms Khambay said this:- 2c. Direct Discrimination (s.13 EqA) … [07/08]/2023 - Incident comment I have been converting to Islam, and Himanshu would be next and he would become a Hassan. 87 / 112 … 2d. Harassment (s.26 EqA) … ● [07/08] 2023 - Gossip/rumours of affair with Aslam; Huller “wedding” remark … 9. Gossip and innuendo culminated in a public comment where I was present in July/ August 2023, when Huller loudly stated in Hindi/ Punjabi: “Congratulations, I heard there has been a wedding in the Information and Performance team.” This deeply humiliating remark caused serious emotional distress and illustrates the persistent public ridicule I endured.[442]Ms Khambay corrected the date of 2d when affirming to sometime in July 2023. She was asked why she had not checked the date so it was correct before she lodged her grievance. She initially told us she had checked but had a lot going on. When asked again she told us she couldn’t recall if she had checked.[443]She was also asked to confirm that she had not identified in her grievance which colleague in the Digital Informatics team had shouted to Himanshu. She acknowledged that Mr Huller was not mentioned, then said it was definitely him and having been asked to listen to the question on the third time of asking to acknowledge she had not. She was then asked:- Q: Looks like Huller not involved because you speak to the three of them about it A: No Q: Don’t mention Aslam or Abbas there A: No[444]She then accepted that cast doubt on her account.[445]She was next asked if the person shouting did it in a way she didn’t understand. She stated she had a basic command of Punjabi but there were several words she did not understand. It was put to her that that was different to what she had said that in the claim form (and the at the grievance meeting on 5 June 2025). She had to be asked four times before she accepted that was so.[446]Further points were raised with her concerning her coming to learn after she presented her claim that:- 446.1. Mr Huller was not in work on 8 August 2023 and 446.2. that he said he did not speak Punjabi.[447]She denied the former but accepted the latter before going on to accept the former and assert as to the latter that he did. She was asked how she knew 88 / 112 that if she didn’t speak Punjabi. She stated that she heard him converse with others stating that’s the language they speak.[448]It was put to her that sex had nothing to do with it as her account Mr Asam was there. after several questions she accepted that. She was then asked what part race played. She told us “I believe it was based on religion as I had concerted to Islam. Their discontent was about that”. She was asked to confirm it was not argued as race and responded, “Just religion”.[449]Mr Aslam said his in his witness statement:- “3l. I was also aware of gossip within the Trust about an alleged affair between Aneet and myself. On one occasion, I heard Mr Shivaraj Huller make a 'wedding' remark in Punjabi in front of colleagues. This was humiliating for Aneet and damaging to her professional standing.”[450]Miss Abbas said this:- 10. In August 2023, I personally heard Shivaraj Huller mockingly shout in Punjabi outside the maternity entrance: "Congratulations, there's been a wedding in your team," clearly directed at Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam. It was deeply inappropriate, humiliating, and circulated widely.[451]Despite what Miss Abbas said neither Ms Khambay’s grievance nor her particulars allege that Mr Aslam and Ms Abbas were direct witnesses to this complaint. That was highly relevant information to have included in both documents. Further by the time of that grievance meeting the date had changed from a specific date (8 August 2023) to an earlier and wider timeframe, Mr Aslam was identified as a witness, although Ms Abbas was not.[452]Mr Aslam did not mention that Miss Abbas was present in his grievance investigation interview [857]. Nor does Miss Abbas specifically state that Mr Aslam was present.[453]Mr Huller said this in his witness statement:- “6 This incident could not have occurred as alleged for the following reasons: a) I work at the Trust on Wednesdays only. I note that I was alleged to have made this comment on 8 August 2023, which is a Tuesday. I don’t work Tuesdays, and I was not in work on 8 August 2023. b) It is alleged that I made the comment in Punjabi. However, I do not speak Punjabi; my native language is Kannada. I am unaware if the Claimant speaks Punjabi. c) It is alleged that I made this comment to Himanshu Jaggat. Himanshu is not a member of my team; he is part of the Information team. Our interactions are casual, typically on a 'hi and bye' basis. We occasionally see each other, such as when getting coffee, but I do 89 / 112 not recall ever having said “congratulations” or anything similar to him. d) I deny that I made the alleged comment or anything similar, and I am unclear why such an allegation has been made.[454]When asked about this cross-examination Mr Huller denied the claim twice.[455]For the reasons we set out above Ms Khambay’s account of almost all the core component parts of this complaint have changed (when this occurred, who was present, who was alleged to have said this, the translation point and the reason why it was said). Her witnesses also lack clarity as who was present.[456]Had this occurred as alleged Mr Aslam and Ms Khambay should have complained about this at the time. They did not.[457]For those reasons we give no weight to the account of Ms Khambay and her witnesses and find this did not occur as alleged. That complaint therefore fails. THE COMPLAINTS DATING FROM AROUND 17/18 AUGUST 2023[458]The first two of these complaints both involve a meeting between Ms Khambay and Mr Khan that occurred off premises at a coffee shop whilst she was off sick. We thus address them together.[459]Whether this is right or wrong is not a matter we need to address as this is not the subject of a complaint but Mr Khan told us the reason for meeting her was this:- “23 … At this time, the Claimant was off sick. Mr Aslam was also off sick and had been informed that there was an investigation being undertaken into his behaviours by Mark Dickens. As a result, the Claimant had been told to not speak to Mr Aslam. I knew that the Claimant and Mr Aslam were close, and I was concerned that the Claimant didn’t have anyone she could speak to. I was concerned for her wellbeing. The purpose of meeting with the Claimant was to check to see that she was ok. As the Claimant was off sick, we met in a coffee shop near where she lived in Walsall. I told the Claimant that the conversation was “off the record” and that I wouldn’t share what we spoke about with anyone. …” 90 / 112(1)17 August 2023 Haq Khan commenting about the Claimant’s surname change to “Aslam”, asking her “How does that look?” Direct Discrimination (race and/or religion/belief) [2.2.8(c)] & (sex) [3.2.16] & Harassment (Sex) [5.1.16](2)17 August 2023 Mr [Khan] raising the perception of the Claimant, saying that the internal review report was damning, that she had incriminated herself, asking her why she would want her name to be dragged through the muck of an investigation and that he would support her in getting her 3 months’ notice so that she could leave the business and seek alternative employment Direct Discrimination (race and/or religious belief) - 2.2.9, (sex) – 3.2.15 & Harassment (Sex) – 5.1.15[460]In her claim form Ms Khambay said this:- 16. On 17 August 2023, the Claimant met with Haq Khan, the Chief Finance Officer. During this meeting, several topics were discussed including why the Claimant was absent from work, and issues concerning the perception of the Claimant. Mr Khan said that the internal review report was damning but that there were no surprises. Mr Khan informed the Claimant that she had incriminated herself by going on sick leave and asked the Claimant why she would want her name to be dragged through the muck of an investigation. He said he would support her in getting her 3 months' notice so that she could leave the business and seek alternative employment. Mr Khan commented about the Claimant's surname change to "Aslam" and asked her "How does that look?"; the inference being that she had changed her name to match that of Mr Aslam's.[461]Ms Khambay addressed this in witness statement thus:- … ● 17/08/2023 - Khan stated, ‘How does this look?’ concerning my name change ‘Aslam’ … 8. Senior management weaponised my professional interactions with Aslam by imposing inappropriate and unjustified restrictions. I was instructed to avoid him, not to car share with him, not to have lunch with him, and even to alter my working hours to limit contact. These instructions were rooted in gossip rather than legitimate business reasons and served only to isolate me. In addition, Khan made a disparaging remark about my surname, asking “How does that look?” which directly undermined my identity and faith. “ … 91 / 112 13. On 17 August 2023, Khan informed me that the internal review was “damning” and then offered me three months’ salary to leave quietly during the conversation which he led at Costa Coffee, where he asked me to attend outside of work whilst on sick leave. This was an act of coercion, designed to suppress my complaints and to pressure me to leave the organisation, despite my continuing employment.[462]Ms Khambay referred to this conversation in her grievance [487]:- “2b. Haq Khan informed me that I was not on Catherine’s radar, in terms of a formal investigation. However, being off on work-related sickness had put me on that radar and I will now be included in the formal investigation. He also asked me ‘why I would want to go through the muck of an investigation?’ How does being off sick on work-related stress, a sickness taken for the first time in my career with George Eliot NHS Trust make me liable to be included in a formal Investigation, when initially I was not part of this investigation? I feel grieved, threatened, and bullied by the statements and actions taken by the senior Executives in the Trust. 2c. [Mr Khan] made a direct comment about my name change and asked me 'How does that look?' This is a personal matter and I feel that this was a direct attack on my dignity and personal space. In our EXCEL values, we talk about respect and dignity, as well as excellence and safety in everything we do, where were the EXCEL values when it came to me? One of the EXCEL values is challenge but support, where was my support during this process?”[463]At the sixth grievance meeting (5 June 2025) [723] the minutes record Ms Khambay said this:- “AK: Felt after Sid had conversation with the team, situation was worse and felt like it had been confirmed. People were digging even more especially when she chose ‘Aslam’, meaning ‘near to perfect’ as a new surname. People would make a direct attack on her faith. Rag, Bipin, Meena, Menorj, all made jokes about her surname being the same as KA’s. Students in her work experience programme made jokes, and ask Himanshu when he would be converting.”[464]Mr Khan addressed in his witness statement the run up to and comments concerning Ms Khambay’s change of surname. Following on from where we left off the quote at (459) he said this:- “… As part of the discussion the Claimant asked what her options were. I asked the Claimant what she meant, and she said she was worried that she was implicated in the 92 / 112 investigation and asked me again what her options were. I said to the Claimant that the investigation involved Mr Aslam but it could expand to more people. I said that the investigation could conclude that there was a case to answer or that there was no case to answer. I asked her what she meant about her “options” given she remained in her role and was not subject to an investigation. I attempted to provide reassurance and outlined what may happen next, including that the investigation would take place and that she could return to work once she was deemed fit. Other options were that she could move to another role at the Trust if that would make her feel more comfortable as the Claimant had raised concerns that Mr Aslam wasn’t there to provide some air cover and protection and was concerned about managing the team because she felt that some members of the team might make her life difficult. I also said she could leave the Trust if she wanted to. I said this in the context of this would always be an option available to someone who was not happy at work. I provided these options as the Claimant had specifically asked what her options were. I did not offer any view on whether she should take any of these options.”[465]He then went on to address the specific allegations turning firstly to the issue of the “perception of Ms Khambay” and him saying the internal report was damning :- “23.1 … I deny making this comment re incrimination and I am unclear why I would have made a comment like this given that at this stage the Claimant was not subject to the investigation. From reviewing the bundle, I can see that the decision to investigate the Claimant was not until 18 September 2023, one month later [p465-466].”[466]As to the allegation that I asked the Claimant why she would want her name to be dragged through the muck of an investigation and that I would support her in getting 3 months’ notice pay so that she could leave the business and seek alternative employment:- “23.2 … I deny making these comments. As above, the Claimant asked me what her options were. This question confused me given that she was not subject to any investigation at this stage. I outlined the three options, as I saw it, as above. I am unclear why I would say that I would “support” the Claimant in getting three months’ notice pay because this is what she was contractually entitled to if she resigned. This was an option open to the Claimant at any time, the same as any other employee is entitled to their notice period when they resign.”[467]With regard to her change of surname to Aslam and the alleged comment “How does that look”:- 93 / 112 “23.3 … I remember asking her why she had changed her name, and she said that she had changed it to Aslam personally but not professionally. She explained that the reason she had taken the same name as Mr Aslam was because he had supported her in reverting to Islam. I accepted this explanation because I recall Mr Aslam previously saying to me that the Claimant had been asking him a lot of questions about Islam and that he had signposted her to information. This discussion was out of curiosity and as a general conversation; it was not discriminatory on the grounds of her race/religion/sex and I would have had the same conversation with any colleague I had worked closely with and had a good working relationship with who had changed their surname.”[468]In cross examination Mr Khan’s position was put to Ms Khambay. She bluntly denied that his witness statement was an accurate reflection of what was discussed and denied each statement and reasserted what she had said in her witness statement. It was put to her that in the case Mr Aslam brought against GEH he too had alleged he had been encouraged to leave. Having accepted she was aware of that it was suggested she was being treated the same as him despite them being of different sexes. She denied that stating that comments regarding the muck of an investigation were not said to Mr Aslam.[469]Mr Aslam also made similar allegations concerning Ms Khambay’s surname (see paragraph 18 of his particulars of claim [1142]). GEH assert the comments therefore had nothing to do with sex.[470]It was then suggested that if Mr Khan had said them, it was not because of race or religion. She asserted that was so stating “It was because I was a Muslim. If Christian or other faith group Mr Khan would not have been so comfortable to have that discussion. Similarly if male. But different to Mr Aslam - not done in same way.” (for context see (36))[471]In her claim form and the two complaints Ms Khambay refers to the(a) the report being damning,(b) she had incriminated herself by going on sick leave(c) regarding her change of name 'How does that look?'(d) ‘why I would want to go through the muck of an investigation?’ and(e) getting her 3 months' notice.[472]Yet in her grievance (the closest document in time) she only explicitly referred to (c) & (d) and in her witness statement (the last document in time) to (a), (c) & (e). Her account on those specific issues has changed as time has passed. The comments she says were made were as time passed being added to only for some to later disappear.[473]Again, she made no contemporaneous complaint as she should have done. 94 / 112[474]In cross-examination of Mr Khan questions were asked concerning Dr Catherine Free who at one point was acting Managing Director of GEH. They were not led and Dr Free has not had the opportunity to comment on them so we do not intend to address them in any detail. For context Mr Khan accepted his personal relationship with Mr Aslam outside of the Trust, she determined that he might be too ‘close’ to the issues, and that an independent review should be carried out into the concerns that had been raised. That led to the review by Mr Dickens.[475]Again, that demonstrates a repeated theme of new points being raised on behalf of Ms Khambay and reinforce how her position changed over time .[476]Those matters together with our general concerns regarding her reliability lead us to prefer Mr Khan’s version of events to that of Ms Khambay.[477]As to Mr Khan and Ms Khambay meeting at all she agreed to do so and raised no objection about this.[478]As to first complaint Mr Khan accepted, he had asked if she had changed her name out of curiosity but flatly denied he said, “how does that look”.[479]We accept he did not ask “how does that look”. In the light of the previous discussion about perception (see our findings starting at ()) we find that was a legitimate question to ask in context and his question was not said due in any sense to race, religion or belief or indeed sex (as to the latter Mr Aslam made the same complaint). Viewed objectively that was not harassment and, in any event, Ms Khambay has not demonstrated how the proscribed circumstances flowed from that. Both heads of that first complaint accordingly fail.[480]We accept that Ms Khambay having sought clarity on what consequences could follow and the various alternatives that Mr Khan explained matters to her. That discussion has to be viewed in that context. As a result, we find that the second of these allegations did not occur as alleged. Again, we find that was not said or done in any sense due to race, religion or belief or sex. Again, objectively viewed that was not harassment and Ms Khambay has not demonstrated how the proscribed circumstances flow. Both the harassment and discrimination elements of that second complaint therefore fail. (3) 18 August 2023 Michael Parr, advised the Claimant to take three months’ pay and seek alternative employment, rather than be dragged over the coals of an investigation Direct Discrimination (race and/or religion/belief) - 2.2.10 & (sex) – 3.2.17 & Harassment (Sex) – 5.1.17[481]There is no contemporaneous documentary evidence of this complaint. In the claim form it is put this:- “17. On 18 August 2023, the Claimant had a Teams meeting with Michael Parr, who similarly advised the Claimant to take three months' pay and seek alternative employment, as this would be the best outcome for her. When questioned why, he 95 / 112 repeated a similar explanation to Mr Khan asking her why she would want to be dragged over the coals of an investigation.”[482]Ms Khambay did refer to this alleged conversation in her grievance [487]:- “3a. On 18th August 2023, I had a Teams meeting with Michael Parr, who said that he would advise me to take three months’ pay and seek alternative employment, as this would be the best outcome for me. I asked Michael, where all this was coming from and what had made him form this opinion. As part of the same conversation, he stated 'why would you want to be dragged over burning coals when you can seek alternative employment’. I was shocked by what I was hearing. I felt extremely threatened when Michael Parr said, ‘You don’t want to mess with Catherine as she has cleared out all consultants in our Emergency Department and also dismissed multiple consultants within our Paediatrics Department’. My response to Michael Parr was one of dismay informing him that I was here to work.”[483]Thus Ms Khambay expanded on what she said in her grievance explaining that she asked Mr Parr why he, like Mr Khan, had suggested she take three months and leave and that was the context for his comment “why she would want to be dragged over the coals of an investigation.”[484]Ms Khambay led no evidence about this complaint in her witness statement. Nor does she say in her grievance what was said prior to Mr Parr’s comment by way of context.[485]Mr Parr said this in his witness statement:- “13.3 …. I do recall speaking to the Claimant on, or around, 18 August. The Claimant was off sick at this time, and I recall her being quite upset during the call. The Claimant expressed concerns about the Dignity at Work investigation into Mr Aslam and that it could expand to her. I recall that I said something along the lines of that if it was me, I wouldn’t want to be subject to such an investigation. I said this out of compassion and asked the Claimant whether she wanted to put herself [through] such an investigation, knowing they can be long. I did not advise her to take three months pay and seek alternative employment. However, I was aware that only a few months earlier she had said that PWC wanted her back, so it was in this context I offered that if I was her I wouldn’t want to go through such an investigation.”[486]In that context and given their disputed accounts, the expansion over what Ms Khambay said in the grievance investigation in her claim form, her having led evidence on this issue and given our concerns generally about her account despite Mr Parr not being able to be challenged we prefer his account to that of Ms Khambay and find that the words alleged to have been said were not said. 96 / 112[487]Again, Ms Khambay makes no complaint that the call was made. In the light of her sickness and given what we find was their close working relationship, it is difficult to see that the call was intended to be anything other than supportive and to check on how Ms Khambay was.[488]As to the discrimination aspect of this complaint, we find Mr Parr would have made the call and made the same comments to any colleague who was off ill and who had expressed concerns about a complaint made against them and the potential outcome. We find that the call and/or the words that were said or done were due to her sickness and their close working relationship in an attempt to be supportive and to give guidance and in no sense due to Ms Khambay’s race, religious belief or her sex. That complain therefore fails.[489]Absent Ms Khambay providing context so the circumstances and reasonableness of the effect can be considered or indeed the details the effect of what was alleged to have been said had on her the harassment complaint must fail. THE FAILURE TO SUPPORT COMPLAINT On dates not provided Haq Khan and Michael Parr failed to support or put appropriate measures in place to address the matters referred to at points2.2.1 and2.2.2 above. Direct Discrimination (race and/or religious belief) –2.2.3 & (sex) – 3.2.3 (c)[490]This is raised at in relation to the direct discrimination and harassment complaints at paragraphs 25 (sex or sexual harassment) and 26 (race or religion) of the particulars of claim in the same terms [20-21] “(iii) Messrs Khan and Parr failed to support or put appropriate measures in place to address these matters;”[491]Whilst Ms Khambay refers at various points in her witness statement to the failure to provide support these are generalised assertions and do not address directly a link to the complaints at2.2.1 &2.2.2 (both of which are alleged to follow the departure of Mr Buckler in July 2022). Nor does she address when she raised these issues with Messrs Khan and Parr and what was said. That point is reinforced by the absence of contemporaneous documentation of this complaint.[492]In her grievance [482] Ms Khambay referred at (9a) to a meeting that took place with Mr Parr and Mr Jagat on 7 August 2023 (see our findings starting at (403)) and certain comments allegedly made in that meeting before going on to say: “9b. These comments started to erode trust in the management team…”[493]Given in the grievance Ms Khambay dates that erosion as starting in August 2023 that suggests she had trust in the management team prior to then. She 97 / 112 does not explain how that was so if they had been failing to support her for just over a year in relation to complaints she was raising.[494]That aside her statement in the grievance is also at odds with her raising complaints at the meeting on 3 May (see 332) and the paragraphs that follow).[495]As we state repeatedly above had these issues arisen as alleged Ms Khambay was under a duty to raise and if not followed up, pursue them. Similarly, for those that Mr Aslam (and to a lesser extent Miss Abbas) were aware of. they did not. Given Mr Aslam was Ms Khambay’s line manager for parts of the time concerned and/or was working with her, in order to have properly addressed these complaints and adequately explained why she did not complain about him also, both she and he would have needed to detail what complaints were made, when and the detail of them and neither has done so. Due to that lack of detail, the failure to contemporaneously document the complaints and our findings regarding her reliability as a witness we find that the events that are said to underlie this complaint occurred as alleged and accordingly they fail. PAY[496]The parties clarified before us there were two aspects to these money claims:- 496.1. the inequality of pay between Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam whilst she was acting up in his role. That claim is for equal pay and is thus related to her sex. 496.2. the inequality of pay between Ms Khambay and other staff after she ceased acting up and became took up a band 8b in January 2023. That claim is based on her race.[497]As to the first aspect pursuant to paragraph 2 of the case management order with respect to the Claimant's discrimination claims liability only. That included the question of like work and GEH’s material factor defence in relation to equal pay but excluded any claim for equal value.[498]We address the second aspect starting at (545) below. Equal Pay - Like Work[499]The issues here are these:- “7.1 Is the work undertaken by the Claimant “like work” to that of the comparators per s65(1)(a) EA2010, specifically:7.1.1 On a general consideration of the type of work done and the skills and knowledge needed, is the work the same or broadly similar (per s65(2) EA2010?7.1.2 On a more detailed consideration of the work done, are any differences of practical importance in relation to the terms and conditions of employment having regard to(a) the frequency with which differences between their work occur in practice and(b) 98 / 112 the nature and extent of the differences (per s65(3) EA2010)?”
The Law
[500]Mr Heard summarised this in his submissions. It is unnecessary to repeat it here in full. There are two key questions in deciding whether an employee and a comparator are engaged in like work: 500.1. Is the work of the employee and her comparator the same or broadly similar? 500.2. Are any differences between their work of practical importance in relation to the terms of their work?[501]The comparator here is Mr Aslam.[502]The first question is a broad one and requires an assessment of the work actually done which can potentially include consideration of levels of responsibility and seniority.[503]The second involves a more detailed and granular analysis of any differences in the work between the employee and her comparator and if those as exist are of practical importance such as would be reflected in terms of employment.[504]HHJ Tayler in CSC Computer Science Ltd v Hampson [2023] EAT 88 identified that the following are the key factual determinations: 504.1. what work did the claimant do during the relevant period or periods? 504.2. what work did her comparators do during periods relevant to the comparison? 504.3. were there any differences between the work that they did? 504.4. what was the frequency of the differences in practice? 504.5. what was the nature and extent of the differences?[505]In undertaking the assessment Mr Heard reminds us that the focus is on what the employees do in practice, rather than what they might be required to do under their contracts or job descriptions, although such documents may provide evidence of the work that is actually done. He also points us to the approach set out Equal Pay Code of Practice issued by the EHRC at paragraphs 35 to 37. Our findings[506]Ms Khambay was initially employed as an Information Systems Development Programme Specialist, a band 8a project management role and reported to Mr Aslam. Her job description [1116 -1122] and person specification [1123-1124] were before us. Her contract and application form were not. That demonstrates an instance of poor record keeping on GEH’s part. It was part of a consistent theme on its part.[507]Mr Aslam was paid at the maximum pay point on the 8c scale (£75,874) [748]. 99 / 112[508]This complaint relates to the period from 15 July 2021 when Ms Khambay was “acting up” for Mr Aslam while he was on sick leave and after his return.[509]There is a dispute how long this lasted for. Mr Aslam was absent from 15 July and 19 November 2021 [857]. Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam told us when he returned it was initially on a phased return but could not date when that ended. GEH was unable despite requests to date when that was. Again, that demonstrates poor record keeping on its part.[510]We will return to this in a moment but first need to highlight an issue that complicated the position.[511]Mr Parr told us [MP/6] that Mr Aslam had been recruited relatively quickly and on a fixed term basis at a band 8c in May 2022. He went on to say that following a decision by him and Mr Khan to align GEH’s structure with another Trust in the same Foundation group as GEH, South Warwickshire Foundation Trust) (“SWFT”) he was involved in the re-banding of Mr Aslam’s role. As a result of that re-banding Mr Aslam’s role was “matched” with a Mr Kevin Shine at SWFT. As a result, Mr Aslam’s title was changed to Associate Director of Information and Performance and he was moved up to a band 8d, the same as Mr Shine. This change was backdated to the commencement of Mr Aslam’s employment (April 2021) and he was paid backpay as a result [176-184].[512]The background to Mr Shine’s own regrading that led to that difference was a restructure of SWFT. As a result of that reorganisation at SWFT Mr Shine’s old 8c role disappeared, he became a band 8d (a higher grade) and SWFT introduced two band 8b roles.[513]As a result of the consequent restructure at GEH, Ms Khambay applied for and was appointed in January 2023, to a new band 8b role, Head of Data Science (Systems) [193-200]. We return to that in due course as that forms part of her claim for pay based on race.[514]As we say at (548) below following her appointment Ms Khambay told Messrs Parr and Khan that she been made an offer of a role at PWC (where she had previously worked) at a higher rate of pay. To retain her, rather than pay her at the bottom of band 8b (£56,164) where they say she should have been as she was new into the role GEH offered to pay her at the top of band 8b (£65,262). As a result, Mr Parr had to complete a Higher Salary Justification Form [217].[515]Returning now to the pay claim based on sex during the period of her acting up. It is common ground that Ms Khambay was paid at the same Agenda for Change pay band/grade (8c) as Mr Aslam prior to his regrading and the backdating of his pay.[516]It was not disputed that Mr Aslam was paid at the highest pay point within band 8c (at that time £75,874), whereas Ms Khambay was at the bottom pay point within band 8c (£65,664). The principal reason Mr Parr gave for that was Mr Aslam’s experience.[517]Whilst in the schedule of loss she provided [122] Ms Khambay identified the backpay paid to Mr Aslam retrospectively as part of his regrading it became apparent she had not reflected in the sums she had received backpay she had 100 / 112 previously received when she was paid for acting up, thereby overstating the sums claimed.[518]That aside, Ms Khambay’s complaint appears to be twofold:- 518.1. she was not paid at the same pay point as Mr Aslam whilst she was acting up. 518.2. when Mr Aslam’s role was regraded, he was retrospectively paid at his new band 8d role for the period in which she was acting up, whereas she was not.[519]The version of GEH’s acting up procedure that we had before us [608] postdates the events that concern us. The version current at the time was not provided. The version before us [613] states that pursuant to the NHS Agenda for Change:- “3.2 … pay whilst acting up should be set at the minimum of the new pay band, or if this should result in no pay increase, the first pay point in the band which will deliver an increase in pay. The terms and conditions applying to the new post will apply to the individual acting up into that position for the duration of their acting up appointment.”[520]According to that document Ms Khambay should have been paid at the minimum pay point (£65,664) in grade 8c [748] because that was the grade Mr Aslam was paid at that time.[521]That was all confirmed albeit belatedly by a notice of change form dated 22 October completed by Mr Parr [602] and stated, “Acting Up for Head of Information & Performance in line with the role’s 8c banding (bottom point) for 6 months from 15th July 2021”. That appears to have been submitted on 26 October but was not actioned for several weeks and after the acting up period of 6 months had expired [158-159].[522]Contrary to policy acting up should have lasted no more than 6 months [612]:- “3.1 ‘Acting Up’ refers to when a member of staff temporarily covers a more senior post of another member of staff who is absent or to temporarily cover where the post is vacant. … Acting Up opportunities are normally for a minimum of 4 weeks and maximum of 6 months. Where cover is required for longer than 6 months, a fixed term advert should be considered, or the manager should agree a finite duration for the Acting Up period. There should be a job description and person specification in place for the Acting Up role.”[523]Instead, as we say it was belatedly extended at the behest of Mr Parr. It appears to have only come to an end when Ms Khambay was successful at an interview conducted by Mr Singh and Mr Parr in November 2022 [824] and was appointed to a new post of Head of Data Science – Systems from January 2023 at the maximum pay point in 8b [295]. Her conditional offer of the role 101 / 112 was dated Monday 19 December 2022 [218]. We return to this issue in relation to the pay claim based on race starting at (545) below.[524]The fact that the policy was not followed in relation to acting up did not appear to be unusual. In her grievance meeting of 1 May 2025 [702] the notes record:- “LB Asked was it normal for the organisation not to follow recruitment process? AK Confirmed No, although she was aware that this is something she had been accused of. Was aware George Eliot struggled to recruit as wasn’t able to attract good candidates due to location and reputation. Felt Haq and Michael Parr had been very quick to make judgements when taking people on, they didn’t always follow protocol for recruitment. Had been a lot of recruitment issues, due diligence not always followed, felt the recruitment issues were being pinned on her when Haq and Michael had interfered, she always made sure she followed process.”[525]In the supplementary bundle supplied by Ms Khambay at [S497] an email of 20 February 2022 from Ms Khambay to GEH’s HR team records she was aware of this:- “In the meantime Khalil is going out to agency to urgently recruit senior roles within the team to include the Data Warehouse Experts, Information Managers, Performance Analyst and Programme Manager (all highly sought after within the current market).”[526]That failure to follow process extended to Ms Khambay personally. That was not limited to the “acting up” process not being followed but her initial appointment as well. In the Grievance Report Outcome [905] said this “There is evidence to suggest that during the time Aneet Khambay was recruited into the Trust this coincided with the COVID 19 epidemic and that this was not a “business as usual” period, in that the Trust were making do with the resources they had available to them at the time.”[527]Ms Khambay continued to be paid on that pay point (albeit subject to the usual annual increments) until she took up her new role at the start of 2023. That appears to have been done on the basis she was still “acting up”.[528]At several points we sought to clarify when her period of “acting up” concluded. In cross examination Ms Khambay told us that Mr Aslam returned in January or February 2022 and that when he did so he was on a phased return and she was told there was a possibility of him having to undergo further treatment so the management team wanted her to continue acting up for the sake of business continuity. She told that during that time Mr Aslam was familiarising himself and re-integrating back to work. She told us he attended meetings and 102 / 112 other things with her and undertook operational management. She told us he started to take back aspects of his role in May time and was unable to say when he started doing his full role or the majority of it, instead telling us this was a gradual process from May to December.[529]Mr Aslam did not supply the detail of it either.[530]Nor did Ms Khambay provide detail of the tasks she did or the nature of them during Mr Aslam’s absence:- “5. In July 2021, during the absence of Khalil Aslam, I assumed his work duties as Head of Information & Performance and later became Head of Data Science [Systems]… … 27. Between April 2021 and December 2022, I undertook progressively senior responsibilities, including acting as Head of Information and Performance. During this period:a. Aslam’s salary was backdated to £91,787; andb. Disparity remained, despite my performing responsibilities that were equivalent to, and in some respects greater than, those of my comparators.”[531]Although, her statement suggests that she assumed all aspects Mr Aslam’s work role in full for the whole period, as we say above, orally she told us that was not so. we return to that below. Further the evidence from Mr Khan and Mr Parr was that Ms Khambay was only expected to undertake the more operational side of Mr Aslam’s role and Mr Parr undertook the more strategic elements of Mr Aslam’s role (which included budget setting, senior meeting representation, setting strategy, agreeing KPI’s, resourcing senior roles, procurement processes and overseeing governance). In contrast, Ms Khambay led and supported the team [MP/5]. Due to Mr Parr picking up a lot of Mr Aslam’s work Mr Khan told us Mr Parr was unable to undertake all the finance aspects of his job, so Mr Khan pick them up [HK/4].[532]In cross-examination Mr Khan reinforced what both Mr Parr and he had said in their witness statements about the division of the higher level aspects of Mr Aslam’s role between them stating that Mr Parr managed the informatics side of Mr Aslam’s role and he, Mr Khan, picked up the finance aspects of Mr Parr’s role.[533]Further when Ms Khambay was asked who reported to her when she was acting up, she struggled to identify who her reports were, only after thinking was she able to name Mr Alan Ewing, Mrs Buckler and three data science managers. She also told us a data warehouse post was vacant. We would have expected her to provide that detail and much more in her witness statement. It having been omitted her failure to be able to readily provide it and more casts doubt on her account on that issue. 103 / 112[534]Further doubt on the basics of her assertion is cast by both her reference to the word progressively in paragraph 27 of her witness statement and her oral account that upon his return his gradually started to take back aspects of his role. Yet she was unable to say when he returned or give real detail of that gradual transfer.[535]Given that bore little relation to her progressively taking on more senior responsibilities or his gradual return again in our judgment that does little to assist in identifying the work she did.[536]Ms Khambay referred us to various emails as demonstrating her title was “Acting Head of Information and Performance” on 30 June 2022 [S824] and 12 October 2022 [S710]. No title is given in the email header of 3 November 2022 [S751] but within the text she is described as “Head of Data Science”. In a later one of 1 December 2022 [S755] she is titled in the header “Head of Data Science”. Given both were before she took up the post on 1 January 2023, they do little to assist in identifying the weight we should attach to these or indeed the work she did either.[537]Other than an assertion that she undertook Mr Aslam’s role Ms Khambay’s failed to relay the detail of the tasks she did during the relevant period and/or parts of it. Her own evidence regarding “progressively taking on senior work” and her tacit acceptance she was not undertaking the whole of his role following his return undermine her complaint.[538]Again, given our repeated concerns throughout this judgment that span the depth and breadth of her evidence including those in the preceding paragraphs we prefer the accounts of Mr Parr and Mr Khan.[539]Therefore, both aspects of this head of complaint (see (518)) fail at the first stage. Ms Khambay has not shown the work she did was the same or broadly similar to that of Mr Aslam. Equal Pay - Material Factor Defence[540]The relevant extract from the issues is:- 7.4 Does the Respondent rely on a s69 EA2010 material factor defence, and if so what is the material factor relied on? Specifically:7.4.1 Experience;7.4.2 the Claimant was acting up into the role;7.4.3 the Claimant was not undertaking the full duties and responsibilities of the role. 7.5 Can the Respondent show that the variation between the Claimant’s contract and the comparator, Khalil Aslam’s contract is due to a factor that is because of a factor that is ‘material’? And 7.6 Is reliance on that factor neither direct sex discrimination nor unjustified indirect sex discrimination? 104 / 112 Experience[541]Mr Khan said this of Ms Khambay:- “4. … She had never worked in Informatics before and did not have the same experience as Mr Aslam. The Claimant’s background was in project management, and this was the role she was recruited to do. The Claimant had also not worked in the NHS before in any role. In comparison, the Mr Aslam had extensive experience in Informatics and his back-ground was in IT and Informatics. Mr Aslam had previously worked at Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, Medway NHS Foundation Trust, and Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (which are all bigger than the Trust), all in senior position in Informatics and in some of these roles also had some responsibility for the IT departments as well. Mr Aslam had also worked at Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust within the Informatics Department. Mr Aslam’s experience in both Informatics and the NHS was therefore extensive. …”[542]Whilst Ms Khambay disputed both her own and Mr Aslam’s experience, she did not provide her CV and when asked further about the CV said she had several which she adapted dependent on the job she as applying for. Based on what we heard we find that Ms Khambay did not have 20 years of experience in operational and strategic management of information and digital teams as Mr Aslam did. He had also undertaken roles that we find were more senior than hers and for longer. Nor had she worked in the NHS environment for any where near the same length of time as him. In our experience as an industrial relations jury those are factors that can influence whether a job should be offered or if so, the responsibilities included within in and/or supervision required and thus the rate of pay. Acting Up/the duties undertaken[543]We are mindful the material factor question technically arises as a defence if Ms Khambay undertook “like work” and thus we should exclude from the exercise any difference in the nature of Ms Khambay’s role that is inconsistent with such a finding. If we are wrong on that on both heads we found above that there acting up was a material factor, why an individual would be paid at a different rate. As to acting up the Agenda for Change procedure set out what was required and that reflected that not all the role was likely to be undertaken or that was for a limited period. Further as we found the role undertaken whilst acting up was different to the for the post holder as Ms Khambay, Mr Khan and Mr Parr’s evidence all demonstrated.
Conclusion
[544]Acting Up/the duties undertaken aside we find experience was a material factor that gave rise to a variation between the contracts of Ms Khambay and Mr Aslam. The fact it was used was embodied (like specific skills/qualifications) 105 / 112 in the differential pay points within the agenda for change pay bands and her equal pay complaint for that reason also fails. On another date not provided that the Claimant was been treated less favourably because of her race (British Muslim) contrary to s13 EA. The alleged less favourable treatment is that the Claimant was paid less than the comparator. Direct Discrimination (race)[545]Of the various comparators identified we intend to address the comparison with Ms Stanley first (for the reasons we give below at (547)), and then the other comparators as one. Ms Stanley[546]Mr Khan said this:- “5(g) Louise Stanley (Head of Data Science and Analytics – Band 8D): Louise’s role is comparable to the Claimant’s Head of data science (operations) role but she was paid at 8d level. Due to urgent business need, Louise was initially recruited on an interim basis via an agency. When she moved to a substantive contract, the Trust had to match her pay in order to keep her. Louise had a lot of NHS and operational experience which we desperately needed as the Claimant was not able to support the operational directorates because she did not have the experience or expertise with the numbers and performance metrics related to the business or the requisite understanding of the running of an hospital so was unable to support the directorates in the way in which it was required. We needed Louise urgently to fill this gap hence the need to pay the premium for her experience, knowledge and skills.”[547]It was thus accepted that Ms Stanley was an appropriate statutory comparator and that she was paid more than Ms Khambay. Ms Khambay disputes the experience and expertise Ms Stanley had.[548]Mr Parr told us this in his witness statement :- “7. As a result of the restructure referred to at paragraph 6 above, in January 2023, the Claimant was appointed into a new band 8b role of Head of Data Science (Systems) [page 193-200]. This was a development opportunity for the Claimant, and we put in place an extensive training package, including funding an MSc in Artificial Intelligence and Data Science to support her in this role. At around the same time the Claimant informed Haq and I that she been made an offer for a higher paying job at PWC (where she had previously worked). As a result, we offered to pay at the top of band 8b (£65,262) rather than bottom of band 8b (£56,164) where she should have started as she was new into the role. I completed a 106 / 112 Higher Salary Justification Form so that she would be paid at the top of Band 8b. This led to the Claimant being appointed at the top of band 8b [page 217] The person specification for this role is at page 209 of the bundle. The letter confirming the Claimant would be appointed into the new role is at page 218 of the bundle. Unfortunately, there was an error in this letter which stated this role was 8c. I later clarified this was an error and the role was top of 8b [page 221]. 8. …However, due to an urgent need to fill the role, Ms Stanley was initially engaged through an agency which resulted in her being paid at a higher level than had she been recruited directly. When we offered Ms Stanley a substantive contract (to save on VAT and agency fees), we had to match this rate of pay resulting in her being paid at band 8d level. Ms Stanley was also recruited on a 6-month fixed term contract and those on 6-month contracts are typically paid at higher band to reflect the short-term nature of the role. Therefore, whilst Ms Stanley was paid at a higher band than the Claimant, there were clear business reason for this. I explained this to the Claimant at the time, and she did not object.”[549]Thus, Ms Stanley was graded 2 grades within band 8 than Ms Khambay. Despite that Ms Khambay asserts that her role was more complex than Ms Stanley's.[550]The offer letter to Ms Stanley dated 22 December 2022 [1187] stated her salary would be £79,592 per annum (Band 8d), her start date would be 30 January 2023 and the duration 12 months.[551]Ms Khambay accepted Ms Stanley’s start date and that she worked initially through an agency. We find the latter may account for the oral evidence we heard that Ms Stanley was working for GEH before Christmas 2022.[552]We also heard that Ms Stanley finished working at GEH by June 2023. That may explain why Mr Parr referred to a 6-month contract rather than the 12 months she was offered.[553]This complaint is not pursued on the basis of religion or belief so at a basic level as argued this claim fails given “Muslim” is a faith, not a race. However, given Ms Khambay asserts says she is a British Muslim woman of Asian descent and in his submissions, Mr Heard addresses the issue on that basis we have also considered this as a race complaint.[554]We find recruitment had historically been a difficult issue for GEH and in the circumstances, it needed to pay Ms Khambay more to keep retain her. It was suggested orally on Ms Khambay’s behalf that there were all sorts of issues underlying that recruitment issue including the poor reputation GEH had as an employer. The suggestion was made that discrimination underlay that without evidence being led to support that. 107 / 112[555]At various points within the evidence the recruitment issue was highlighted but as Mr Dickens indicated in his report [353] that was not unique to GEH:- “several issues that were raised during the Review were not specific to GEH e.g. difficulties in recruiting staff. However, these have been documented. The fact that they are not unique to GEH does not mean that consideration could not be given to local initiatives to address them.”[556]In Ms Khambay’s grievance [494] she highlighted the wider problem but not discrimination as an underlying reason:- “10a. The information and Performance function has always had vacancies in the team, these vacancies are due to a number of different factors, some of which have been established when speaking to agencies and potential employees, these include and are limited to the perception of George Eliot NHS Trust being a poor employer, the location, the transportation links and the lack of resource availability in the market with the specialist skill required.”[557]In her grievance meeting notes of 28 November 2024 [670] again Ms Khambay highlighted the recruitment issue without identifying discrimination as a factor:- “… recruitment difficult due to the requirements and nature of the posts, highly technical and specialist knowledge is required to understand the function.”[558]We find (Ms Khambay having not demurred from this) that there were vacant roles aplenty at GEH and they had been vacant for some time. We find she also accepted that recruitment was an issue and based on her account failing to reference race as a basis for that, that race played no part.[559]We say below (562) that one of the catalysts for Mr Aslam’s regrading (see (511)) was an offer he received from CapGemini. Based on the evidence we were taken to race and/or religion/belief played no part in his pay before or after that offer. Indeed, the internal documents identify that GEH did pay staff more that the strict Agenda for Change pay scales to retain them albeit subject to concerns being raised about precedents being set [307-309].[560]As Mr Heard points out if Ms Khambay had believed that she was being paid less than she should have been because of her race, she did not assert that what Mr Parr said about telling her of that at the time was incorrect. Had she believed the differential in pay was connected to race we find she would have complained about it at the time. She did not.[561]In the particulars of claim Ms Khambay averred there was “32 ... a pattern of difference in pay based on ethnicity. For example, whilst the Claimant was the acting Associate Director of Information and Performance, there was a significant pay gap between her and her White counterparts within George Eliot NHS Trust. Similarly, Mr Aslam was paid at an 8c when 108 / 112 his counterpart who was a white male was paid an 8d. Furthermore, the following white colleagues were on significantly higher salaries than the Claimant whilst at the same level, Associate Director, often with fewer responsibilities.”[562]As to Mr Aslam’s pay GEH also assert that the original differential was due to him being recruited at speed. This was subsequently addressed when his role was regraded and a restructure carried out. that also led to Ms Khambay being re-graded (see (542)). We find that contrary to that being based on race we find a catalyst for the regrading was the need to retain him following a job offer he received from CapGemini in December 2022 [307-309].[563]Whilst Ms Khambay also challenges the extent of Ms Stanley’s knowledge and experience, she does not engage with providing the requisite detail how she knew that to be the case or what Ms Stanley’s role entailed in detail compared to her own. Instead, Ms Khambay she appeared to place emphasis on job titles rather than the substance of the role. As a result, we could not identify if their circumstances were materially the same. The burden is on her. She did not do so.[564]For those reasons that claim also fails.[565]That aside we find based on what Ms Khambay, Mr Khan and the documents we reference above tell us, GEH had historically and was continuing to encounter recruitment difficulties. It was in need of staff urgently and was having to pay staff more than the band for their role, the grade within it and/or pay point within that to retain and recruit.[566]We accept GEH’s evidence that Ms Stanley was paid more than scale to recruit her (indeed it was suggested orally her contract with the agency was “bought out” to save money). Ms Khambay was paid at the top of the scale because she had been offered a job with PWC, and likewise Mr Aslam. We find that race played no part in the decision as to their respective rates of pay. Based on the documents we saw both Ms Stanley and Ms Khambay were paid more than what they should have been and that was potentially a reflection of their respective negotiating positions.[567]Even if we are wrong on that as Mr Heard also points out there is no documentary evidence of Ms Khambay having complained about any pay differential between herself and Ms Stanley, or any of the other alleged comparators, at the relevant time.[568]We were told and this was not challenged that Ms Stanley left GEH in June 2023. Ms Khambay did not conciliate via ACAS until 5 October 2023, more than 3 months after Ms Stanley left. Any complaint is out of time and Ms Khambay has provided no good reason for that delay. The remaining 8 comparators[569]Within her witness statement Ms Khambay again fails to address in any real detail the roles undertaken by the other named comparators. Indeed, the 109 / 112 comparators named in her witness evidence differ to the 8 over and above Ms Stanley she refers to in the particulars of claim :- “• Sherry Turner - Head of Financial Management / Interim Improvement Manager• Kristy Lewin - Head of Financial Planning and Costing• Mark Borrington - Head of Finance Programme Delivery• Nicole Perret - Head of Financial Management• Rachel Harney - Associate Director of Financial Shared Services• Katherine Emmerton - Associate Director of Finance Programme Delivery• Yasmina Gainer - Head of Financial Planning and Costing• Kirsty Webb - Head of Estates”[570]Ms Khambay’s witness statement referred to:- “29. More broadly, I was remunerated at a significantly lower level than multiple white colleagues, including:a. Sherry Turner;b. Kristy Lewin;c. Mark Borrington;d. Nicole Perret;e. Rachel Harney;f. Katherine Emmerton;g. Kirsty Webb;h. Louise Stanley;i. Gregg Stevens;j. Kevin Shine. Several of these colleagues carried fewer responsibilities than I did, yet they received higher pay. This pattern demonstrates systemic inequality in pay and progression on racial grounds, contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act 2010.”[571]As can be seen Gregg Stevens and Kevin Shine are not mentioned in the particulars of claim. Yasmina Gainer is, but she is not mentioned in the witness statement.[572]As we say above Ms Khambay appears to place emphasis on the named individuals having the same job title including the words “Head of …” or similar as the basis for her claim their roles were the materially the same. Without more that is no more than an assertion. It supports what GEH allege; “ultimately, C does not have the knowledge of these alleged comparators’ 110 / 112 roles, whereas MP and HK do. The Tribunal is invited to readily prefer R’s evidence as to the differences between C’s role and those undertaken by these alleged comparators”.[573]The evidence Mr Heard refers to is that all of the alleged comparators were paid at a higher band than the top of 8b (Ms Khambay’s pay band/grade at the time). Further, GEH state Mr Mark Borrington was a contractor and Mr Khan (and GEH’s other witnesses) were not challenged on that point. Nor did Ms Khambay lead any evidence as to his status to challenge that.[574]That is a repeat of the recurring theme that Ms Khambay does not address the detail of whether the named individual’s circumstances were materially the same. Again, nor does Ms Khambay address in any sense how that is linked to race.[575]Again, that complain fails for those reasons.
DISPOSAL
[576]Given the question of Equal Value was specifically excluded from the issues (see (496)) at the conclusion of the hearing the panel asked the parties to identify in terms of case management what steps they suggested the Tribunal would need to take dependent on the various possible outcomes. Mr Heard asked for some time to take instructions and suggested he lodge a note on the issue.[577]He later did so via an email from GEH’s instructing solicitors at 10:38 am on 8 December 2025. The claimant responded at 22:03 that evening. In that document the claimant sought to make submissions on the legal points in issue rather than as requested comment on the suggested way forward dependent on the various outcomes that might ensue.[578]Given the like work complaint has failed and the material factor succeeded the relevant part of Mr Heard’s submissions are these “(a) Where the material factor defence was determined and made out … R would invite the Tribunal to list an open preliminary hearing to determine whether the outstanding equal value complaint has no, or little, reasonable prospects of success in consideration of that successful material factor defence.”[579]We disagree. Given our finding in relation to the like work and material factor defence issues it appears there is no possibility the equal value claim can succeed as the material factor will provide a complete defence to that issue. In the absence of the equal value complaint being withdrawn a hearing shall be listed to address if Ms Khambay’s equal value complaint should be struck out or in the alternative, a deposit should be ordered to be paid on the basis that 111 / 112 complaint has no, (or in relation to the deposit, little) reasonable prospects of success. Separate directions will follow. approved by me
DISPOSAL
[1]There is no reasonable prospect of the judgment with written reasons dated 20 February 2026 and sent to the parties on 23 February 2026 being varied or revoked and the claimant’s application dated 9 March 2026 for reconsideration is therefore refused.[2]The claimant’s “final” anonymisation application is refused for the reasons given below.
DISPOSAL
[1]The claimant’s applications for reconsideration (albeit the email is titled “reconciliation application”), her response to the case management order her view on the equal value complaint and her “final” anonymisation application of 13 March 2026 (which includes her comments on the panel’s anonymisation case management order approved by me on 26 February 2026), the respondent’s comments on those applications and its application for costs dated 18 March 2026 have all been referred to me.[2]Whilst in time, within the reconsideration the claimant does not argue that the matters she raises were not raised or capable of being raised at the final merits hearing. Nor indeed does she set out why they were not raised at the final merits hearing. Instead she challenges the Tribunal’s approach and/or findings of fact and/or directions as to the law and/or the application of the facts to the law. The proper process in such circumstances is to appeal the panel’s decision. The application for reconsideration is therefore an abuse of process. All those matters being so there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked.[3]As to the “final” anonymisation application. I address below at (5) the claimant’s responses to the panel’s request that “the parties shall identify (limited to the issues identified in our reasoning below) any specific narrative 1 / 3 that relates to health issues or similar that they take issue with within the reasons, the specific paragraphs they sit within and why they are objected to.”[4]For the same reasons we give in relation to the reconsideration application, any new points raised by the claimant in the “final” anonymisation application should have been raised at the time of the original application or an explanation provided why not. That aside as to the substance of the decision, again, the proper process in such circumstances is to appeal the panel’s decision. Save in so far as it address our request for input as set out above, it is refused for those reasons.[5]As to the claimant’s response to the panel’s request as set out at (3) above, the claimant appears to have treated that as an invitation to address any issues she had with the decision. It was not. Having consulted with the other members of the panel on the points raised by the claimant in the “final” anonymisation application we have determined that paragraphs 13-15 of the judgment with reasons shall be redacted as per the attached on the basis those paragraphs relay medical information, and whilst referred to in relation to the application for adjustments sought by the claimant they are not directly relevant to the subject matter of the claim (as per paragraph 25 of the reasons on the anonymisation application). As to the remainder of the claimant’s comments they go beyond what we determined comments should be provided on and are refused.[6]As to the claimant’s response to the equal value complaint she was ordered to “… confirm if the equal value complaint is pursued and if so on what basis”. Her response:- “The basis upon which the claim is pursued remains that the role I occupied and the roles of the identified comparators were of equal value in terms of skill, effort, responsibility and decision-making, as required by the Equality Act 2010. I maintain that the work undertaken was comparable in substance and organisational responsibility, notwithstanding differences in job titles.” takes issue with the panel’s determinations and is a basis for appeal, not a basis setting out why that claim should not be struck or a deposit ordered. It does not address what was sought.[7]The equal value complaint shall be listed for a hearing time estimate 3 hours to consider strike out or whether a deposit should be ordered and if appropriate case management directions for the furtherance of that complaint. A notice of hearing will follow the reference to Regional Employment Judge Jones at (9) below.[8]As to the respondent’s costs application that too is in time. It shall be listed for a hearing time estimate 3 hours. A notice of hearing again will follow the reference to Regional Employment Judge Jones at (9) below. In advance of the same the directions proposed by the respondent at paragraph 17 (a) and 2 / 3 (d) of its application (the time for the claimant to comment and provide full details should she wish to rely upon the same of her income, outgoings, assets and liabilities) shall apply save that the times for compliance shall be as follows:- (a) Friday 24 April 2026 (d) Friday 8 May 2026[9]As I will no longer be sitting in the Employment Tribunal the composition of the panel in relation to the costs and strike out/deposit applications shall be referred to Regional Employment Judge Jones. Any remaining directions shall be addressed by Regional Employment Judge Jones or such judge as shall be nominated by her. approved by me